Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Correct mark-up for non-documented cmds #1325

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

josephwright
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@FrankMittelbach FrankMittelbach left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

one inline comment (but basically without action I guess).

% \begin{macro}{\InputIfFileExists}
% \begin{macro}{\@input@file@exists@with@hooks}
% \begin{macro}{\unqu@tefilef@und}
% \begin{macro}[no-user-doc]{\InputIfFileExists}
Copy link
Member

@FrankMittelbach FrankMittelbach Apr 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sure we don't want to document that one given that it is CamelCase?

TLC3 documents both \IfFileExists and this one and says

The command \InputIfFileExists tests not only whether file exists, but also inputs it immediately after executing then-code. The name file is then added to the list of files to be displayed by \listfiles .

But looking a bit further I guess it is just that the documentation for this command is in another file, so I guess making it no-user-doc here is correct.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's described in ltclass.dtx: we re-define it in ltfilehooks.dtx, but that means there's no user documentation here - I guess we need a 'described elsewhere' marker but for the present no-user-doc seemed the best fit.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes that's what I was thinking also when I realised the the corresponding section was called "patching ....".
Probably a good idea to also add described-elsewhereand use that for such cases, or perhaps even description=ltclass.dtx

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, so perhaps leave these ones 'non-fixed' at the moment until we have a version of l3doc that covers this?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed, might be better to change l3doc first, and also fix the missing \MaintainedBy stuff there and then update the 2e .dtx file (for the latter there is an open issue)

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 3, 2024

This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Aug 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

undefined page references in ltfilehook-code and ltshipout-code
2 participants