Re: New "function tables" in V13 documentation

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that
>> plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
>> backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old
>> format.

> The person who made that comment retracted later.

> If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
> discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
> the old format.

I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case
where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation.
I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables
that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of
such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical
functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used
to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in
footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice.

regards, tom lane