Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?

so 18. 4. 2020 v 22:36 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:30 PM David G. Johnston
> > <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I feel like writing them as:
> >> + (date, integer) -> date
> >> makes more sense as they are mainly sorted on the operator symbol as
> opposed to the left operand.
>
> > I thought about that, too, but I think the way Tom did it is better.
> > It's much more natural to see it using the syntax with which it will
> > actually be invoked.
>
> Just for the record, I experimented with putting back an "operator name"
> column, as attached.  I think it could be argued either way whether this
> is an improvement or not.
>
> Some notes:
>
> * The column seems annoyingly wide, but the only way to make it narrower
> is to narrow or eliminate the column title, which could be confusing.
> Also, if there's not a fair amount of whitespace, it looks as if the
> initial name is part of the signature, which is *really* confusing,
> cf second screenshot.  (I'm not sure why the vertical rule is rendered
> so much more weakly in this case, but it is.)
>
> * I also tried it with valign="middle" to center the operator name among
> its entries.  This was *not* an improvement, it largely breaks the
> ability to see which entries belong to the name.
>

first variant looks better, because column with operator is wider.

Maybe it can look better if a content will be places to mid point. In left
upper corner it is less readable.

Regards

Pavel


>                         regards, tom lane
>
>