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

From: Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pierre Giraud <pierre(dot)giraud(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: 2020-04-15 15:43:24
Message-ID: CAMsGm5dhAAf9YZh3scCcs_SX+2F2k1QyRPWn0hgnOX2xQOPo4Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 11:26, Pierre Giraud <pierre(dot)giraud(at)dalibo(dot)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:

- 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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2020-04-15 15:53:54 Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-04-15 15:31:49 Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority