| Title: | DOCUMENT T1.0 |
| Notice: | **New notesfile (DOCUMENT.NOTE) now available (see note 897)** |
| Moderator: | CLOSET::ADLER |
| Created: | Mon Feb 09 1987 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Oct 31 1991 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 897 |
| Total number of notes: | 4397 |
I am having some trouble getting my routines names to line up properly in my
table of contents. I am using software.spec, baselevel 8. Given the folllowing
fragment of an input file:
<RUNNING_TITLE>(Commands)
<CHAPTER>(commands)
<HEAD1>(Overview)
<P>
This document describes the necessary functionality
<HEAD1>(title)
<P>
This document is being written
<HEAD1>(Necessary Routines)
<P>
The following are preliminary (and intentionally sketchy) definitions of
routines.
<P>
<ROUTINE_SECTION>(Commands \\NEWPAGE)
<SET_TEMPLATE_ROUTINE>(ROUTINE\DOUBLERUNNINGHEADS)
<ROUTINE>(GET_ATTRIBUTE)
<OVERVIEW>
This routine is used to get the value of a particular attribute of a given
object.
<ENDOVERVIEW>
<FORMAT>
<FRTN>(GET_ATTRIBUTE) <FARGS>(object, attribute, value)
<ENDFORMAT>
<ENDROUTINE_SECTION>
The following contents file is produced:
Contents
CHAPTER 1 COMMANDS 1-1
1.1 OVERVIEW 1-1
1.2 TITLE 1-1
1.3 NECESSARY ROUTINES 1-1
GET_ATTRIBUTE 1-2
Shouldn't get_attribute start to the right of necessary routines, rather than to
the left?
---Karen
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 487.1 | contents alignment is not great | CLOSET::ANKLAM | Tue Jun 09 1987 17:51 | 8 | |
You are right; the contents entry format assumes that command, routine,
etc. reference elements are not inside chapters. I will have to
think on how to make this more sensible (I have also had complaints,
that when the routines are in a <part> all by themselves, the text
is too far to the right...)
patti
| |||||
| 487.2 | Fix that might satisfy you | COOKIE::JOHNSTON | Tue Jun 09 1987 19:57 | 78 | |
Karen, I'm one of the others who've complained about the placement of
the page number for routine names in the soft.spec contents. In fact, I
was not pleased with the placement of the routine name or the fact that
it didn't retain upper/lower case. So I created a new doctype based on
soft.spec and modified those three things.
*NOTE* This was the behavior for BL7.
I haven't yet installed BL8, but expect that I will have to modify
soft.spec just as I did for BL7. Following is the code that I modified
with a brief explanation. Remember, this is from BL7; if you are
running BL8 it should get you on the right track.
Look for the code that defines the format of the table of contents in
the soft.spec dtp file (tag$s_specification.dtp in BL7). You might do a
search on "contents" and "case".
Hope this helps.
Rose
\or % case 13 = \TOCcommand
% \advance \hsize by -3.25pc
\advance \hsize by 0pc % align page numbers for routines
\tocheadonefontspecs%
\vskipbb{15pt} %to center text between rules
% \indentthenhang{\gutterwidth}{2pc}\rrag{\Uppercase{#3}}%
\indentthenhang{10pc}{2pc}\rrag{#3}%indent to head3, upper/lowercase
\hfill\hbox to 3.25pc{\hfil #4}\par
1. Making "\hsize by 0pc" aligned the page numbers; trying more than
0pc cause the page numbers to truncate.
2. Deleting the reference to uppercase made output just as the
user typed it (what I wanted); changing it to "lowercase" makes
it all lowercase regardless of input.
3. Changing {\gutterwidth} to {10pc} indented the routine names
at a head three level, which is where they belonged.
For output comparison:
This is what the original output looked like:
1.1 TYPE DEFINITIONS 1-1
1.2 ACCESS PATH MANAGER 1-1
1.2.1 Overview 1-4
1.2.2 Concepts 1-4
1.2.3 Functions 1-4
CREATE_ACCESS_PATH 1-5
REMOVE_ACCESS_PATH 1-7
RECLUSTER_RELATION 1-8
This is what the modified output looks like:
1.1 TYPE DEFINITIONS 1-1
1.2 ACCESS PATH MANAGER 1-1
1.2.1 Overview 1-4
1.2.2 Concepts 1-4
1.2.3 Functions 1-4
Create_Access_Path 1-5
Remove_Access_Path 1-7
Recluster_Relation 1-8
| |||||