I noticed you left out @inforef, was that by design? It actually does behave quite differently than other members of the @*ref family, and the more arguments it gets the more different it looks IE Here's an example with a full 5 arguments: REF *note Arg2: (Arg4)Lore Ipsum. INFOREF *note Arg2: (Arg3)Lore Ipsum Arg4, Arg5
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Jonathan Leech-Pepin <jonathan.leechpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > (Here are the attached files, forgot to add them) > > > On 25 February 2013 15:24, Jonathan Leech-Pepin > <jonathan.leechpe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> On 25 February 2013 14:01, Subhan Tindall <subhan.tind...@rentrakmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> The point being that compiling .texinfo source into an Info file >>> treats references differently. For example: >>> (@pxref{my_node_name}). will compile just fine. >>> (@ref{my_node_name}). will not. >> >> >> Both work perfectly fine for me. >> makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 5.0 >> >>> >>> There are also differences in case >>> (see v. See, note v. Note), and differences in output by ref type >>> depending on target output of file (info, DVI, HTML,...). For example, >>> @pxref generates different punctuation for typeset v. info files, @ref >>> does not generate a 'See ' in printed material while @xref does, etc. >>> >>> Although the differences are subtle, they really are not equivalent >>> and should not be treated as such. >> >> >> With a slight amount of work on the user's part, they can be made >> functionally equivalent on export. >> >> Using the two attached minimal .texi files (good-ref.texi is using >> @xref/@pxref as is preferred while ref.texi is using @ref with >> appropriate See/see added in the text) and disregarding filename >> differences (since they are noted in the info output) I get the >> following differences: >> >> > makeinfo --html --no-split good-ref.texi ref.texi >> 0 Diffs >> >> > makeinfo --docbook --no-split good-ref.texi ref.texi >> Filename ID appears in diff >> >> > makeinfo --xml --no-split good-ref.texi ref.texi >> Filename difference. >> >> Links are different since TexinfoML does still distinguish xref/pxref >> and ref in how they create the links. >> >> > makeinfo --no-split good-ref.texi ref.texi >> >> The info file does show the expected differences between the two >> documents, notably that the "@xref{}" becomes "*Note" while the >> equivalent "See @ref{}" becomes "See *note" with @pxref{}->*note vs >> see @ref{} -> see *note. >> >> However once they are viewed within the *info* buffer (C-u C-h i >> good-ref.info/ref-only.info) the lines in question are visually >> identical since *Note becomes "See" and *note becomes "see" if there >> is not already "see" present. >> >> I will not disagree that @ref, @pxref and @xref are subtly different, >> however with slight user intervention @ref can be used in the same >> above locations by simply replacing: >> >> @xref{} -> "See @ref{}" >> @pxref{} -> "see @ref{}" >> >> I had to compare these possible outcomes when working on the texinfo >> exporter. Since links are parsed before being included in their >> paragraphs, I did not have a way to obtain context and therefore >> attempt to guess (and be successful) at which type of reference was >> intended by a link in Org. Restricting it to @ref{} in all cases, >> even if it added a slight burden to the user (4 additional characters >> to type in Org) if they wanted to emulate @xref or @pxref was in my >> opinion the best choice. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Jon >> >> [...] >> > -- Subhan Michael Tindall | Software Developer | s...@rentrakmail.com RENTRAK | www.rentrak.com | NASDAQ: RENT