Eric Niebler wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
2) Program listings and blurbs have faint grey outlines. TOCs and
tables do not. Looks funny. Either use them consistently or don't
use them at all.
3) The grey background of the program listings is lighter than that
used for TOCs and tables. Any reason not to make that consistent, too?
How's this: http://tinyurl.com/zb2t8 (tables)
and this: http://tinyurl.com/g44mm (TOCs)
The tables look interestingly like wikipedia's which I like :)
I don't see any difference from before. What did you change? It still
looks inconsistent in the same ways.
I take it back. These look great to me. The only nit is that blurbs,
tables and program listings are all of slightly different widths. But
that's pretty minor. On the whole, this is very nice.
Also, peeking at the CSS, it looks like you're still tabularizing
variable lists. That gave Rene hives, so I took it out a while back.
It's not the tabular var lists that give me hives :-) It's not having a
real definition list style. I have uses in the bjam docs, and I've seen
uses in other Boost docs, where the table arrangement instead of DL just
doesn't work at all; neither visually nor semantically. For example many
of the DLs in <http://tinyurl.com/lpsga> would not work as tables IMO.
You
also need the changes I made in support of the new-style function
descriptions. I've made all the necessary changes. See attached.
Even though I like the new function descriptions you have I might lean
towards having this kind of layout:
Parameters:
begin The beginning of the sequence.
end The end of the sequence.
flags Optional match flags, used to control how the expression
is matched against the sequence. (See match_flag_type.)
re The regular expression object to use
what The match_results struct into which the sub_matches
will be written
Requires:
Types BidiIter and OtherBidiIter meet the requirements of a
Bidirectional Iterator (24.1.4).
OtherBidiIter is convertible to BidiIter.
[begin,end) denotes a valid iterator range.
Returns:
true if a match is found, false otherwise
Throws:
regex_error on stack exhaustion
[That is a DL for the sections, and the table for the arguments. Or even
without the top DL since the labels already stand out because of the
font weight.]
Check out xpressive's docs with the new CSS and the new function
descriptions: http://tinyurl.com/48kv5. Looks very nice, IMO. Feedback?
Looks good, I mostly like the style of the tables matching the style of
all the other box like elements. One aspect I don't like, on which I've
commented on before, is the background shading of body elements. I
prefer to not have a shading, or have minimal shading, as such shadings
interrupt the overall reading structure of the text. Previously I had
made only the tables on my version of the docs shaded following the
BoostBook precedent but now that I look at your rendition I have what I
think is a more pleasing style <http://tinyurl.com/l95fz> where only the
headers in tables are shaded. The example is of the DateTime docs which
makes heavy use of tables.
In my current style I've also made blurbs (notices, warnings, etc) boxes
not be shaded, instead using a left hand bar highlight
<http://tinyurl.com/ny264>.
--
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
