On Dec 17, 2012, at 18:41 , John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 16, 2012, at 3:32 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This completely breaks the front page toctree structure since each of >>> the "sections" of this document appear as top-level entities there (I >>> already fixed it to use the correct adornments in r170278. >>> >>> My recommendation is to show the title with over+under ====== instead >>> of '.. title::', kill the `.. sectnum::` , and explicitly show the >>> `[foo.bar]` "human-readable" section names in the section titles. >>> Automatic numbering is extremely brittle anyway (from the perspective >>> of citing the document) since adding or removing a section will change >>> all the numbers (that's why the "human readable" identification >>> exists, I presume). Maybe add the section numbering back with some JS >>> like the original document did or with CSS >>> (<http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/automatic-numbering-with-css-counters/>). >> >> CSS section numbering introduced in r170283, thanks for the idea! >> >> @John: >> The ARC document contains human-readable section names (like >> meta.purpose, objects.operands.consumed etc.) Is it OK to put them at >> the end of section titles? > > The intent is for them to be stable links. I don't see much purpose > in otherwise exposing them to users.
Citation, a la the C++ standard? I can understand if we don't care in this case (the ARC document is much more compact, and the paragraphs aren't numbered), but it's not as if there's no use.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
