Re: Warn about invalid node names

[Glenn Morris]

Karl Berry wrote (on Wed, 7 Aug 2013 at 23:12 GMT):

>     Surely these people can live with the warnings, or use --no-warn?
> 
> No, people absolutely hate warnings, and absolutely hate using --no-warn.

Really? This position makes no sense to me.
Why wouldn't you want to be warned about something that could be a
bug in your document?

(FWIW, I can find just two instances of such complaints in the
bug-texinfo archive, both from the same person as it happens:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2001-12/msg00041.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2006-05/msg00000.html

On the other hand, I count at least 4 people asking for _more_
warnings in this case. Small number statistics, I know.)

> I don't think users would be at all happy if their documents that have
> always run through perfectly well started spewing zillions of (in their
> opinions) useless warnings.

Well, I'm unhappy (slightly, :)) that texi files that I thought were
fine turn out to have subtle bugs in them, which makeinfo could easily
have warned me about but didn't. And frankly I think this is a much
more rational thing to be unhappy about.

> Another point is that many instances of those characters in node names
> work fine.  It's only sometimes that the parsing is ambiguous.

That's why it would be a warning, not an error.

(Since as an average Texinfo user I have no way to know which
instances will cause a problem and which won't, all I can do is avoid
such characters altogether in node names, which is totally fine by me.)