Re: Slightly more extended example for named diagnostics

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Bruce Korb wrote:

> All done.  :-)

Over-simplified, you haven't handled all the messages that aren't covered
by the diagnostic machinery (from miscellaneous programs outside cc1
etc.), or the various message fragments marked with N_ and _ for gettext
to extract them (which may in future need to be duplicated, preceded by
various codes, in order to handle the various ways in which they are
declined in sentences in various languages).  I don't recommend generating
a .pot file directly rather than using gettext - better to run gettext on
the generated source file and work out how to get original source
locations into the .pot file rather than references to the generated file.

> How would you like it structured?  How about putting all the
> details in a numericly ordered section and indexed by name
> and sections for each named group that also have indexes
> into it for each member of each group?  The groupings ought to go
> into the full index, but I think I would omit individual
> warnings.  Anything else?  It will be very easy, regardless of
> how you want it formatted.

Ordered in some vaguely logical conceptual way.  The arrangement of
sections in the standard isn't bad, but complicated by messages shared by
C and C++.  Where front ends have their own manuals, messages get
documented in those manuals.  And a properly aesthetic printed manual
requires that the documentation is in Texinfo format.  You avoid needing
to duplicate makeinfo within gcc if you just say "see info gcc whatever
for details" and put the documentation in the manual rather than the
source, then the source just needs to reference the manual and you can
arrange for the node (or the anchor within the node) to be named after the
message identifier.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk