Re: Relating multiple index entries to one table item

[Gavin Smith]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 07:57:16AM +0100, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0123@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > I think deciding on the right output for the existing usage and
> > implementing such is more important than devising and implementing
> > new language constructs.
> 
> I understood you to mean that a list of index entries that follows a
> list of items should get the index automatically distributed.  I'm not
> sure if that's what you mean (my apologies, I've not been following with
> full attention).
> 
> I'm not sure that's quite possible in this instance.  In the example I
> was using, there's a different number of index entries versus items,
> since there isn't an item added for -Wno-..., despite there being an
> index entry to it.

I think all the index entries should link to the first @item.  I didn't
mean that there would be one index entry per @item/@itemx.



> The @itemindex proposal also seems to assume one index per item.  Maybe
> some transformation could be added to associate N @XXindex calls with an
> @item[x] that follows it too?  I haven't seen this usage in the wild,
> but it would allow indices other than f and v to also have properly
> indexed tables.  What I mean is that maybe:
> 
>   @opindex Wpedantic
>   @opindex Wno-pedantic
>   @item -Wpedantic
>   @opindex pedantic
>   @itemx -pedantic
> 
> ... should produce:
> 
>   <dt>
>     <span id="index-Wpedantic"></span>
>     <span id="index-Wno-pedantic"></span>
>     <span>
>       <code>-Wpedantic</code>
>       <a href="#index-Wpedantic" class="copiable-anchor"> ¶</a>
>     </span>
>   </dt>
>   <dt>
>     <span id="index-pedantic"></span>
>     <span>
>       <code>-pedantic</code>
>       <a href="#index-pedantic" class="copiable-anchor"> ¶</a>
>     </span>
>   </dt>
> 
> (formatting added for clarity), though, this has the disadvantage of
> still needing some care to keep the indices and items in sync.  Maybe
> just adding the -Wno-... flags is worth it to get the right result here.

Yes, it may be possible to associate index commands with a following
@item, although as you say, existing manuals may not be written for
this possibility.