Not at present no.... I'm not really sure how one would even do that, there would have to be some kind of docbook XML container that was used to represent "don't index this block". Can you provide an example of a spurious entry? It could be that tweaking the scanning regular expressions used could fix this.
I understand. After more thought, maybe it is not so bad that the samples are indexed. Because the indexed terms are really shown there in their context.
There were some spurious index terms as "p", "r", "for", probably because of the samples, and they could be turned off as documented.
Then there are spurious terms as "point_type" because in the example I often typedef a point a "point_type", but that term also exists as a regular, indexable, entry. They have either to be turned off manually, or turned on in specific sections, or I've to rename them to e.g. ptype in the examples (which might actually be better).
Hmmm, the trouble is, assuming it's searching for something along the lines of typedef something point_type; Then that will occur both where you want it to be indexed (class definitions) and where you don't (example code). So that leaves you with two options - either a section constraint (see my comments below), or exclude that term altogether and add a manual index entry for it by escaping to XML and adding the necessary <indexterm>'s. I accept that's a touch hardcore though!
But turning them off for specific sections does not work for me, probably I do something wrong. I define:
point_type "" "(?!geometry.reference.adapted.register.*).*"
to omit it from all sections starting with reference.adapted.register, but the point_type still appears there. I copied and pasted it from the doc. I added !debug regular-expression , I don't see anything in the log. I'm not a regex-expert and don't see what is wrong here.
Nor do I, the debug info in the other mail suggests it should not be indexed, so I can't see what's wrong.... can you let me have your index-script file so I can try it here?
Another question about this: is it possible to exclude a term twice? So e.g.
point_type "" "(?!geometry.reference.adapted.register.*).*" point_type "" "(?!geometry.reference.exclude_also_from_this.*).*"
Ah, you can do that, but it takes the union (logical or) of the two regexes, and that's not what you want here, which is more akin to a logical and.
Or do I have to write a more complex regex for this?
Nod, something like: "(?!geometry.reference.adapted.register.*|geometry.reference.exclude_also_from_this.*).*" I guess I should make this clearer in the docs... HTH, John.