| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 266.1 | Oops should have been <XSUBENTRY> | VAXUUM::OTTE | | Thu Apr 16 1987 14:36 | 8 |
| Unfortunately you got bit by a documentation bug. There is no <SUBENTRY>
tag, that should have been spelled <XSUBENTRY>. You use this tag
to separate the main entry from the subentry. You can also abbreviate
it as <XS>
Sorry about that, the error is fixed in the FT update manual.
-randy
|
| 266.2 | Abbreviations | 38299::THERIAULT | | Fri Apr 17 1987 12:18 | 9 |
|
RE: .1
Is <XS> a documented, acceptable-to-use abbreviation?
I'd hate to stick it all over the place, only to find it suddenly
stops working some day.
Also, is it possible to abbreviate tags? I sure wouldn't mind
abbreviating <REFERENCE> to <R> or <REF>!
|
| 266.3 | Another abbrev. q. | 38299::THERIAULT | | Fri Apr 17 1987 12:34 | 10 |
| RE: .2, .1
I also remember seeing something like
<x>(...>...)
in an example somewhere, which made me think that > might behave
like <XSUBENTRY> inside <X> and <Y>. I assumed it was a documentaton
glitch. <XS> is terse enough, anyway.
If, for some reason, the > actually is a special symbol, then
I'd like to request that it not be (see 221.6).
|
| 266.4 | | CUPOLA::HAKKARAINEN | Crisis? What crisis? | Fri Apr 17 1987 13:41 | 6 |
| Re .3
The use of > is now obsolete. It had been used in earlier versions
of the software, mimicking the DSRplus subentry flag.
kh
|
| 266.5 | | AUTHOR::WELLCOME | Steve | Fri Apr 17 1987 14:17 | 4 |
| Re: .2
See note 223 for a way to use abbreviations for tags.
|
| 266.6 | <XS> is real all right | CLOSET::OTTE | | Fri Apr 17 1987 14:33 | 5 |
| To answer your question, Yes, <XS> is a real supported tag.
In general, DOCUMENT does not provide abbreviated tag names, but
<XS> is an exception...
-randy
|
| 266.7 | Abbrev for <REFERENCE>? | 38299::THERIAULT | | Fri Apr 17 1987 14:52 | 22 |
|
RE: .5
Thanks for the pointer, but I really want to keep my source files
standard, so I will only use what's officially part of DOCUMENT.
RE: .6
Thanks. <XS> is quite useful. It would be nice if there was a
1 or 3 letter abbrev for <REFERENCE>, though. I have no problem
with defining abbrevs in my editor, but that's not enough.
* When I want to be consistent about something -- even when it's
short, I try to use symbols. A long tag name decreases the
readability of the source -- it stands out more than the symbol
name and breaks the flow of the text.
* In a table with several columns, it is useful to be able to use
symbol-references without causing the table rows to be too long
to read.
I don't mind the length of other tags (in fact, it's probably better
to have descriptive tag names for tags that point out structural
aspects of the document), but it would be great if
<REFERENCE> in particular could be specified as <R>.
|
| 266.8 | Just wondering... | CLT::MALER | | Mon Apr 20 1987 15:07 | 8 |
| Just wondering: Backslashes are used to delimit most information
in most tag parameters. Why did the indexing tags use right angle
brackets, and now embedded tags?... I always thought the most
intuitive thing would be to use backslashes, as in the following:
<x>(File system\examples)
@V@
|
| 266.9 | here's why | CLOSET::ANKLAM | | Tue Apr 21 1987 09:08 | 7 |
|
There were two reasons. THe first is historical. Since we piggy-backed
indexing off of DSRPLUS's indexing, we just retained the convention
of using angle brackets. We needed the argument list for options
(SORT, BOLD, etc.).
patti anklam
|
| 266.10 | <X>(...\...)! | 38299::THERIAULT | | Tue Apr 21 1987 09:09 | 10 |
|
RE: .8
Yes! That certainly would be nice...
I suspect the reason for the embedded tags was originally to
differentiate between un/numbered subentries, but that could
just as easily be done with an optional third arg.
I, too, am interested in the answers to .8
|
| 266.11 | | AUTHOR::WELLCOME | Steve | Tue Apr 21 1987 11:39 | 4 |
| Re: .7 re: .5
Once you run file file with abbreviations through TAGEXPAND, it
IS standard. The abbreviations just give you a shorthand way of
typing in the tags.
|