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

On 4/13/20 7:02 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 4/13/20 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>>> I think one thing that was throwing me off was having the function
>>> signature before the description. I would recommend flipping them: have
>>> the function description first, followed by signature, followed be
>>> examples. I think that follows the natural flow more of what one is
>>> doing when they look up the function.
>>
>> The trouble with that is it doesn't work very well when we have
>> multiple similarly-named functions with different signatures.
>> Consider what the two enum_range() entries in 9.33 will look like,
>> for example. I think we need the signature to establish which function
>> we're talking about.
>
> I get that, I just find I'm doing too much thinking looking at it.
>
> Perhaps a counterproposal: We eliminate the content in the leftmost
> "function column, but leave that there to allow the function name /
> signature to span the full 3 columns. Then the rest of the info goes
> below. This will also compress the table height down a bit.

An attempt at a "POC" of what I'm describing (attached image).

I'm not sure if I 100% like it, but it does reduce the amount of
information we're displaying but conveys all the details (and matches
what we have in the previous version).

The alignment could be adjusted if need be, too.

Jonathan