Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Giraud <pierre.giraud@dalibo.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-15T15:53:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
st 15. 4. 2020 v 17:43 odesílatel Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> napsal: > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 11:26, Pierre Giraud <pierre.giraud@dalibo.com> > wrote: > > >> The best way to achieve this is to use some styling (font style and >> color). >> >> Attached you will find two different options I worked on very quickly. >> > > I really like the first. Just a couple of suggestions I would make: > yes, it is very well readable Pavel > - leave a space between the function name and (. Regardless of opinions on > what source code should look like, your documentation has space between > each parameter and the next one, and between the ) and the -> and the ->. > and the return type so it seems crowded not to have space between the > function name and the (. > - At this point it's not really a table any more; I would get rid of the > lines, maybe tweak the spacing, and possibly use <dl> <dt> <dd> (definition > list) rather than table-related HTML elements. See > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/dl. > > I think the bolding really makes stand out the crucial parts one needs to > find. > >
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