On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 07:44:18PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 10:02:15AM -0800, Raymond Toy wrote: > > First, a simple bug > > https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/texinfo.html#Syntax-Highlighting, > > where the link for "GNU Source-Highlight" is broken. > > This seems to be fixed in the development version, was probably an > incorrect/missing entry in util/htmlxref.cnf: > > 2024-10-27 Patrice Dumas <pertu...@free.fr> > > > * util/htmlxref.cnf (source-highlight, src-highlite): use both > > src-highlite and source-highlight as source-highlight project name. > > 2024-10-27 Patrice Dumas <pertu...@free.fr> > > > * util/htmlxref.cnf (source-highlite): rename src-highlite as > > source-highlite. > > > > But I tried texinfo 7.1.1 with HIGHLIGHT_SYNTAX with pygments to highlight > > the examples in Maxima's user manual. It works quite well for the few > > examples I looked at. Generating the HTML document took much longer than > > usual, but I guess that's expected since there are about 2500 @examples in > > the manual. > > I don't know if it is a reason for the time needed, but for pygments the > program is run for every example, which may be less efficient than > for source-highlight for which one file (per language) is generated and > run through source-highlight.
Is it worth having both options for syntax highlighting for source-highlight in case an example changes something for later examples? I do not know anything about how source-highlight works, so it may not be a problem, but imagine the hypothetical situation of a language where you could define new operators or change the string quotation syntax. I suppose another option for such changes would be for the document author to provide another argument on the @example line to indicate which @example blocks should be processed separately. Can work on this wait until after the next release?
