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

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Attached are screenshots of the same segment of table 9.10 as before
> >> and of the initial portion of 9.30, the patch against HEAD to produce
> >> these, and a hacky patch on the website's main.css to get it to go
> >> along. Without the last you just get all the subsidiary stuff
> >> left-justified if you build with STYLE=website, which isn't impossibly
> >> unreadable but it's not the desired presentation.
>
> > These seem very nice, and way more readable than the version with
> > which you started the thread.
>
>
I too like the layout result.

> Glad you like 'em ;-). Do you have an opinion about what to do
> with the operator tables --- ie do we need a column with the operator
> name at the left?
>
>
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 think the description line is beneficial, and easy enough to skim over
for the trained eye just looking for a refresher on the example syntax.

David J.