Re: @defun and @defvr in the "same" block?

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:37:10AM -0800, Raymond Toy wrote:
>   
>> However, I've run into a small issue.  The original Scribe did things like:
>>
>> @defun[fun {check-region-query-size}, args {@i[region]}]
>> @defhvar1[var {Region Query Size}, val {30}]
>> @enddefun
>>
>> This basically looks like as if I'd done defunx, except Region Query Size
>> is marked as a Hemlock Variable.
>>
>> My translation is
>>
>> @deffn {Function} {check-region-query-size} {@i{region}}
>> @deffnx {Hemlock Variable} {Region Query Size} @val{30}
>> <description>
>> @end deffn
>>
>> The output matches the Scribe output.  But Region Query Size is in the
>> Function Index, and not the Variable Index.
>>
>> Is the only way to fix this is to use separate these two out and use @defvr
>> for Region Query Size and potentially rewrite the description to match?
>>     
>
> Currently yes.  But indeed, it would be natural in that case to follow
> @deffn by @defvarx.  I think that it would not be hard to implement that
> in texi2any, but I am not sure that we want to have that possibility in
> the Texinfo language.
>   

What would be wrong with it?  Since the @def*x commands do not start a 
block, instead adding additional heading lines to the current definition 
block, why should they not be intermixable?  This would be particularly 
appropriate for Lisp-family languages, where dynamic bindings can be 
used as implicit function arguments.


-- Jacob