>> > But do you really want to get the old sectioning name back for >> > printed output? >> >> Yes, because using `@anchor` would be the result of demoting, say, >> `@subsection` to `@subsubheading`. > > It seems to me that this specific use case would benefit even more > from another options, which would be to have @node associated to the > next @*heading command if there is nothing formatted between the > @node and @*heading. This is what is already done for HTML: > > . if a @node is not associated with a sectioning command but is > followed by a heading command not usually associated to nodes > such as @heading and this command appears before other > formatted content, the heading command is assumed to supply > the node heading. you can customize this with > USE_NEXT_HEADING_FOR_LONE_NODE. > > I have no idea if this is feasible in Texinfo TeX, though.
I guess this can be implemented in `texinfo.tex`, however, it doesn't fly with Info, AFAICS. > Another option would be to add an @-commands without numbering that > do not appear in table of contents but still delimitates a section > and is associated to a @node. Maybe like \paragraph in LaTex > (though it seems to appear in the table of contents), or @topic if > it can be used at any level and could also be interpreted as a unit > of documentation not part of any particular narrative flow (as in > DocBook 5.2). Well, I think that your `@anchorlabel` suggestion is the way to go. Actually, I would prefer a shorter name, say, `@label`. Then you can demote ``` @node Foo @subsection Foo doodle doo ``` to ``` @label Foo @subsubheading Foo doodle doo ``` and `@xref` would work identically – such a `@label` command could even obey `@xrefautomaticsectiontitle`. This would also leave the `@anchor` command unchanged. It seems to me that our discussion finally arrives at something :-) Werner
