Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2009-10

New CHM documentation snapshot

3 messages · 2 people ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Marco van de Voort

Last night I added binary index support to the CHM package, and regenerated all CHM packages, and packaged a new snapshot (nr 7)

http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/doc-chm.zip

note that Michael is currently updating the docs for 2.4.0, and he hasn't committed the bulk of the changes yet, so these don't differ that much from the last snapshot (nr 6).

I noticed that while kchmviewer (4.0/linux) loads the index noticably faster (startup in 1-2 sec), it has some limitation with big indexes (rtl, lcl). I already notified the author, but I don't know if kchmviewer has some way to override binary index loading.

kchmviewer 4.1 on windows is slower (slower treeview?) and has the same bug.

For the time being I added some switches to fpdoc to disable CHM binary toc/indexing:

--no-bintoc disables the binary TOC
--no-binindex disables the binary Index.

Reply by email

Michael Van Canneyt
to Marco van de Voort
Marco van de Voort wrote 9 lines
Last night I added binary index support to the CHM package, and regenerated all CHM packages, and packaged a new snapshot (nr 7) http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/doc-chm.zip note that Michael is currently updating the docs for 2.4.0, and he hasn't committed the bulk of the changes yet, so these don't differ that much from the last snapshot (nr 6).

? The bulk of the changes was committed friday.

Michael.

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Michael Van Canneyt

In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:

Show quoted text 10 lines
> Last night I added binary index support to the CHM package, and > regenerated all CHM packages, and packaged a new snapshot (nr 7) > > http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/doc-chm.zip > > note that Michael is currently updating the docs for 2.4.0, and he hasn't > committed the bulk of the changes yet, so these don't differ that much from > the last snapshot (nr 6). ? The bulk of the changes was committed friday.

Well, then I guess they are in :-)

Reply by email