This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Ada] User Guide?
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Geert Bosch <bosch at gnat dot com>, <guerby at acm dot org>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:31:32 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Ada] User Guide?
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112021232360.10340-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>
"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> The files checked into CVS should process in Texinfo without any special
> magic or additional preprocessing, so they can go in onlinedocs. It's OK
> if this gives a Unix-style manual and the VMS one is given by using
> -DVMSSTYLE to texi2dvi/makeinfo/....
I've produced version of the GNAT User Guide which doesn't require
special preprocessing. It is based on the mid-November ACT version,
so I don't know if it's still up-to-date. (It uses the suggested
-DVMS approach and some macros to work around Texinfo limitations.)
To be honest, I have no idea which "open issues" Geert is talking
about. There are still some things which have to be done, of course
(for example, some of the newer GNAT features added since 3.14 or so
are not documented, and markup is still inconsistent in a few places),
but this shouldn't stop us from committing the current ACT version to
CVS, followed by my changes which remove the need for preprocessing
(and which correct most of the markup issues).
> With those fixed the file works. What's the status of fixing those
> and the other Texinfo and other style issues I noted with
> gnat_rm.texi and gnat-style.texi?
I've got patches for a few of them. Some of them were already
submitted, IIRC one was applied, but the other ones were neither
approved nor rejected.
I'm willing to do the remaining work, but only if I'm sure it won't be
ignored (and perhaps overtaken by changes to the internal ACT tree).