dlang.org Library Reference

foobar foo at bar.com
Sat Dec 22 14:12:49 PST 2012


On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 18:31:48 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 21.12.2012 18:05, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> (...)
>> 
>> The cheat sheet in std.algorithm is unnecessary (though I 
>> liked the brief examples), but there's a
>> lot of value in the symbols grouped by category (searching, 
>> comparison, ...) at the top. So we need
>> to have a means to group things in the new interface.
>
> Ideally, we would invent some standard DDOC syntax to specify 
> groups then. But generally an
> ungrouped list also has its advantages when you try to look 
> something up _by name_. I've found
> myself in the past, skimming over the category table multiple 
> times, looking for a certain function,
> until deciding that I had to guess the category first, which 
> may not always be obvious.
>
> So maybe keeping the manual category quick index table (and 
> maybe putting it in a separate
> "Categories:" section) is a viable option for the time being? 
> Most modules probably wouldn't need
> one anyway.
>
>>> What also would be nice is to have the methods inline, 
>>> expandable.
>
> Would that mean the Classes/Structs/... tables as f.ex. in 
> std.datetime?
> So there would be a small clickable thing and all members would 
> fly out below it as direct links?
> and possibly with the short description?
> What about different kinds of members? Only methods, all 
> grouped by type or all in one list?
>
> I'm just asking because I don't have any preferences for how 
> such a thing should look like.

Other docs systems provide a sorted index of symbols and also the 
module tree can be further expanded to see the contained symbols. 
Both very handy features.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list