Comments: Authenticated sender is <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
From: "George Foot" <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:01:22 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Patch to mkdoc and re: portability information
Reply-to: george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <E0zDcyX-0007ul-00@sable.ox.ac.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On 27 Aug 98 at 14:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Is it really necessary to have port-note's *before* the @portability
> tag?  It's kinda counter-intuitive (a note to something that's not
> written yet?).  This is nitpicking, of course.

The reason for this order was that otherwise there's no terminating 
line.  Currently the program gathers the information as the node is 
processed, then when it sees the `@portability' line it knows that it 
has all the information, so it converts it to Texinfo and writes it 
to the output file.

We could start with `@portability' and end with `@end portability' if 
you like.  It would be very awkward to have no terminator, unless the 
portability information lies at the very end of the nodes.

> > Finally we need to go through the .txh files adding the information.  
> > This is a big task, but not very difficult to do at a simple level, 
> > since the header files already show whether a function is defined in 
> > ANSI or POSIX or neither.
> 
> You could do this with a program, or even a Sed script, since the
> __STRICT_ANSI__ and __POSIX_SOURCE symbols tell the whole story.

That might not be trivial because different nodes have different 
amounts of documentation; some have examples, some don't, some have 
miscellaneous notes after the return value but before the example, 
...  My Sed scripting isn't up to this. ;)

-- 
george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk