GNU bug report logs - #56420
Link to Info manual from describe-package help

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 56420 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 03:28:01 -0700

Severity: wishlist

It would be useful if we could get hyperlinks to Info manuals on the
`describe-package' screen, just like we can in `describe-variable'.

Message #8 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 13:38:46 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> It would be useful if we could get hyperlinks to Info manuals on the
> `describe-package' screen, just like we can in `describe-variable'.

Do you mean the `(manual)Node Name' links?  If so, do you have an
example of a package with such a link?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #11 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 14:36:37 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Do you mean the `(manual)Node Name' links?

Yes.

> If so, do you have an example of a package with such a link?

No, but I wanted to add it to ERT just today.  (But didn't because it
doesn't link.)

However, thinking a bit more about this, perhaps we should just make
it easier to link to the Info manual up at the top?  I.e. where it
currently says:

     Status: Installed in ‘xr-1.22/’. Delete
    Version: 1.22

One question is what to do if the package/manual is not installed.  I
guess we could just show it without a link in such cases.

Message #14 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 09:41:09 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

>> Do you mean the `(manual)Node Name' links?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If so, do you have an example of a package with such a link?
>
> No, but I wanted to add it to ERT just today.  (But didn't because it
> doesn't link.)

If you add it the link, I can add code to recognise it.  😀

> However, thinking a bit more about this, perhaps we should just make
> it easier to link to the Info manual up at the top?  I.e. where it
> currently says:
>
>      Status: Installed in ‘xr-1.22/’. Delete
>     Version: 1.22
>
> One question is what to do if the package/manual is not installed.  I
> guess we could just show it without a link in such cases.

Yes, that'd also be nice.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #17 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 14:28:34 -0700

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> If you add it the link, I can add code to recognise it.  😀

Now added (to ert.el)!

Message #20 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:47:15 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

>> If you add it the link, I can add code to recognise it.  😀
>
> Now added (to ert.el)!

You have

Info manual `(ert) Top'

in the doc, but the magical phrase is "info node", according to
`help-xref-info-regexp'.  We could add "manual" as an alternative...

"\\<[Ii]nfo[ \t\n]+\\(node\\|anchor\\)[ \t\n]+['`‘]\\([^'’]+\\)['’]"

But this reminds me -- why are we so strict about the Info links,
anyway?  Could `(foo) Bar' in a doc string be anything but a manual
reference?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #23 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:22:56 +0530

[திங்கள் ஜூலை 11, 2022] Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> But this reminds me -- why are we so strict about the Info links,
> anyway?  Could `(foo) Bar' in a doc string be anything but a manual
> reference?

Perhaps, the same could be said for man pages as well.
`man-page(section)' is probably refers to a manpage.  If we want to
avoid a lot of false positives, then we can restrict section to be
numeric I think?

Message #26 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:59:46 +0200

>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:22:56 +0530, Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com> said:

    Visuwesh> [திங்கள் ஜூலை 11, 2022] Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
    >> But this reminds me -- why are we so strict about the Info links,
    >> anyway?  Could `(foo) Bar' in a doc string be anything but a manual
    >> reference?

    Visuwesh> Perhaps, the same could be said for man pages as well.
    Visuwesh> `man-page(section)' is probably refers to a manpage.  If we want to
    Visuwesh> avoid a lot of false positives, then we can restrict section to be
    Visuwesh> numeric I think?

Not all man page sections are numeric

Robert
-- 

Message #29 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:32:11 +0530

[திங்கள் ஜூலை 11, 2022] Robert Pluim wrote:

>     Visuwesh> Perhaps, the same could be said for man pages as well.
>     Visuwesh> `man-page(section)' is probably refers to a manpage.  If we want to
>     Visuwesh> avoid a lot of false positives, then we can restrict section to be
>     Visuwesh> numeric I think?
>
> Not all man page sections are numeric

Indeed, that's why I said "avoid a lot of false positives."  But IME,
the only non-numeric sections I came across were the Perl ones.

Message #32 received at 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
 56420 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56420: Link to Info manual from describe-package help
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:28:39 +0200

>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:32:11 +0530, Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com> said:

    Visuwesh> [திங்கள் ஜூலை 11, 2022] Robert Pluim wrote:
    Visuwesh> Perhaps, the same could be said for man pages as well.
    Visuwesh> `man-page(section)' is probably refers to a manpage.  If we want to
    Visuwesh> avoid a lot of false positives, then we can restrict section to be
    Visuwesh> numeric I think?
    >> 
    >> Not all man page sections are numeric

    Visuwesh> Indeed, that's why I said "avoid a lot of false positives."  But IME,
    Visuwesh> the only non-numeric sections I came across were the Perl ones.

But if you restrict to only numeric, youʼd miss those, along with n,
l, and the various 3foo sections. Iʼll admit theyʼre not common.

Robert
-- 

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.