groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: problem with groff.texi: @ref{} in PDF and HTML fomats


From: Gavin Smith
Subject: Re: problem with groff.texi: @ref{} in PDF and HTML fomats
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:57:58 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 04:28:52PM +1000, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Gavin and other Texinfo mavens,
> 
> I've encountered the following issue with groff's Texinfo manual and am
> seeking advice or, if it's a bug, a fix.
> 
> We have the following paragraph in our groff.texi file:
> 
>       The following lists some built-in registers that are not
>       described elsewhere in this manual.  Any register that begins
>       with a @samp{.} is read-only.  A complete listing of all
>       built-in registers can be found in @ref{Register Index}.
> 
> This seems to render incorrectly in PDF and HTML formats, using the
> Debian packages for Texinfo 6.5 and 6.7[1].
> 
> Info/Text output:
> 
>       A complete listing of all built-in registers can be found in
>       *note Register Index::.
> 
> Apart from info's idiosyncratic cross-reference notation, the above
> seems fine.
> 
> HTML output:
> 
>       A complete listing of all built-in registers can be found in see
>       Register Index.
> 
> Here, the "see" is superfluous.  This could be attributed to misuse of
> the @ref macro in the source, but then we have...

I don't know why this happens.  There is no reason that the word "see" 
there should be in HTML output.  I thought maybe that @ref had been 
redefined as a macro but looking at 
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/doc it doesn't look like 
it.  Could you send me the complete sources you used to get this error
(including any included files)?  Optionally you could also try to reduce 
the size of the failing input.

> PDF output:
> 
>       A complete listing of all built-in registers can be found in see
>       tie E [Register Index], page 235.
> 
> Appendix E is the correct reference but the injected "tie" screams out
> to me a mal-expanded @tie{} macro.

Yes, it looks like it.  This is mysterious but we might be able to see 
the reason once we solve the other problem.  Again I wonder if @ref 
has a wrong definition.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]