Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes:
Thanks for finding the problem. Should we leave this bug open until specification->package+output is properly documented in our manual, with an example? If yes, would you like to try your hand at adding it?
I've looked at this briefly, and can't figure out a good place to document this (I'm also not particularly good with TexInfo).
I'm okay with closing the bug. Though I will say that I think this procedure is a bit of a foot-gun. Multiple value returns are always kind of weird, and in this particular case I don't see the value at all; the only reason to use ‘specification->package+output’ would be to get both the package and the output, so the minor advantages of multi-value returns are obviated. On top of that, does this even get used outside of system/home definitions? And in those places you always want a list.
I realize a lot of code uses the current semantics, so changing them would be extremely difficult at this late stage. It's worth thinking about adding another procedure that does the expected thing (returning a list of package and output), IMHO, and transitioning over to that.
-bjc
