Hi John, On 14-5-2011 10:27, John Maddock wrote:
1) I want to exclude a whole section (the reference matrix, for obvious reasons). Can that be done?
No, I guess that's a feature request then ;-)
Right ;-)
2) I also want to exclude all examples (nearly every page in Boost.Geometry will have one; these examples of course also include other "terms"; which should not be indexed on that page). Is there a way to mark a qbk-block to be excluded from being indexed?
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). 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. 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.*).*" Or do I have to write a more complex regex for this? Thanks, Barend