Re: [Chicken-users] Re: eggdoc-texinfo

[Zbigniew]

Mario,

I hadn't played with 'man' much and didn't realize about the parser.
Translating eggdoc to man format would not be difficult in a basic
sense, the problem is handling the Texinfo formatting--line wrapping,
tables, etc.--all the stuff Info normally does itself.  Obviously, the
same applies to converting .texi to man.

If someone would like to take this on please do; I find Info
sufficient for my needs so probably will not pursue it, as the
rendering part of Info would have to be reimplemented.  So, I guess
you can cut my list of reasons for .texi in half :)


On 18 Jul 2006 13:22:27 -0300, Mario Domenech Goulart
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello Zbigniew,
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:06:55 -0500 Zbigniew <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if, in the future, it makes sense to include .texi files
> > in the eggs.  I find it very convenient to have access to egg .info
> > files from within emacs, and for those who don't use Info, the "man"
> > extension can parse .texi and make documentation available in the
> > interpreter.
>
> Regarding to the input files for the man extension: wouldn't it be
> easier and cleaner having eggdoc to emit data in the format the man
> extension expects?
>
> The texi parser included in the man extension is not any good.  It's
> specially crafted for the Chicken manual.
>
> As far as I can imagine (please, correct me if I'm wrong), the
> generation of man format from eggdoc format would need a redefinition
> of eggdoc procedures to generate the man format (which is quite
> simple) instead of texi or HTML.  Would it be difficult?
>
> Best wishes,
> Mario