Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-14T16:03:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > At any rate, if the price of more clarity and more examples is that > the tables become three times as long and harder to read, I am > somewhat inclined to think that the cure is worse than the disease. I > can readily see how something like table 9.10 (Other String Functions) > might be a mess on a narrow screen or in PDF format, but it's an > extremely useful table on a normal-size screen in HTML format, and > part of what makes it useful is that it's compact. Almost anything we > do is going to remove some of that compactness to save horizontal > space. Maybe that's OK, but it's sure not great. It's nice to be able > to see more on one screen. I dunno, it doesn't look to me like 9.10 is some paragon of efficient use of screen space, even with a wide window. (And my goodness it looks bad if I try a window about half my usual web-browsing width.) Maybe I should go convert that one to see what it looks like in one of the other layouts being discussed. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Doc: re-re-revise markup for tables of functions.
- 4ad047a6eac3 13.0 landed
-
Doc: revise formatting of function/operator tables.
- 737d69ffc3cf 13.0 landed