Re: next in menu also below, error message?

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:48:01PM +0000, Karl Berry wrote:
> 
> Why would anyone do that?  In fact, the documentation says you shouldn't
> (below for convenience).  That's not how parts in books are used.
> 
> So I think it should be a warning to even attempt to associate a node
> with a part.  Unless we're going to rethink how parts work.

Ok.  I have lots of tests for weird associations of @parts, @node
and the corresponding @chapter.  For instance, I thought that

 @node the node for part and chapter
 @part part
 @chapter chapter

was acceptable, but I agree that what is in the documentation
makes more sense.  I will add warnings for incorrect constructs,
mostly
* @part with node
* @part without @chapter-level command

In any case, the @part case made me realize that automatic 
directions when there are parts were incorrect since @part should
more or less not be taken into account when doing automatic
directions based on sectioning.

More generally, it seems to me that there are 2 trees when there 
are parts, one with the parts, and one without.  For example
when there is

@top top
@part part
@chapter chap
@chapter chap1
@part part1
@chapter chap2

depending on the context, one would want a tree like

top
part
  chap
  chap1
part1
  chap2

or a tree like the following

top
  chap
  chap1
  chap2

In the code there is a already a distinction between 
section_next/section_up... for the first tree, and 
toplevel_next/toplevel_prev, for the second tree without the @part.

-- 
Pat