Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread Jim Meyering
jema...@gnu.org wrote: >> This hangs for non-GNU projects, like libvirt, that have no .texi >> documentation. We really need to make progress on the patch to refactor >> maint.mk rules per Jose's ideas: >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-02/msg00242.html >> wh

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/26/2010 02:44 PM, jema...@gnu.org wrote: > >> This hangs for non-GNU projects, like libvirt, that have no .texi >> documentation. We really need to make progress on the patch to refactor >> maint.mk rules per Jose's ideas: >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread jemarch
> This hangs for non-GNU projects, like libvirt, that have no .texi > documentation. We really need to make progress on the patch to refactor > maint.mk rules per Jose's ideas: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-02/msg00242.html > which would conveniently fix this

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread jemarch
> +# Don't use Texinfo @acronym{} as it is not a good idea. > +sc_texinfo_acronym: > + @grep -nE '@acronym{' \ > + $$($(VC_LIST_EXCEPT) | grep -E '\.texi$$') && \ > +{ echo '$(ME): found use of Texinfo @acronym{}' 1>&

Re: [PATCH 2/2] maint: use pragma consistently across replacement headers

2010-03-26 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/25/2010 06:46 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: >> -#ifndef _GL_CTYPE_H >> - >> #if __GNUC__ >= 3 >> @PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER@ >> #endif >> >> +#ifndef _GL_CTYPE_H >> + >> /* Include the original . */ >> /* The include_next requires a split double-inclusion guard. */ >> #...@include_next@ @NEXT_CT

Re: putc vs printf

2010-03-26 Thread Simon Josefsson
Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > GNU RCS does not presently use gnulib, but it will in the future. > With that in mind, i have a question inspired by this comment in > the source code: > > /* Output the first character with `putc', not `printf'. > Otherwise, an SVR4 stdio bug buffers output inef

putc vs printf

2010-03-26 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
GNU RCS does not presently use gnulib, but it will in the future. With that in mind, i have a question inspired by this comment in the source code: /* Output the first character with `putc', not `printf'. Otherwise, an SVR4 stdio bug buffers output inefficiently. */ I don't know what to m

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread Jim Meyering
Simon Josefsson wrote: > Jim Meyering writes: >> Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 03/24/2010 01:46 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > syntax-check test for this seems useful, to foster harmonization > across > GNU packages. How about the patch below? > > I have no objection, certai

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread Jim Meyering
Simon Josefsson wrote: > Eric Blake writes: ... > # Don't use Texinfo @acronym{} as it is not a good idea. > sc_texinfo_acronym: > - @grep -nE '@acronym{' \ > - $$($(VC_LIST_EXCEPT) | grep -E '\.texi$$') && \ > + @if $(VC_LI

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread Simon Josefsson
Jim Meyering writes: > Eric Blake wrote: >> On 03/24/2010 01:46 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: syntax-check test for this seems useful, to foster harmonization across GNU packages. How about the patch below? I have no objection, certainly. >>> >>> I pushed the patch below

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread Simon Josefsson
Eric Blake writes: > On 03/24/2010 01:46 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>> syntax-check test for this seems useful, to foster harmonization across >>> GNU packages. How about the patch below? >>> >>> I have no objection, certainly. >> >> I pushed the patch below. >> >> +# Don't use Texin

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

2010-03-26 Thread Jim Meyering
Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/24/2010 01:46 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>> syntax-check test for this seems useful, to foster harmonization across >>> GNU packages. How about the patch below? >>> >>> I have no objection, certainly. >> >> I pushed the patch below. >> >> +# Don't use Texinfo @ac