Cedric: At the bottom of the main clojuredocs.org page is the text below. I've copied it here because perhaps the best way to get such changes made is to contribute changes to the code of the clojuredocs.org web site. At the least, it would be good to open a case. You'll have to go to the site for the actual links, which I don't think I've copied as links.
We're in Beta We'll make every effort to keep these services up and bug-free, but no promises. If you'd like to take a look under the hood, ClojureDocs is split up across three repos: The site, the analyzer, and the api. If you've got an itch to scratch then open up an issue, or fork away and send us a pull request. Andy On Feb 27, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Cedric Greevey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Bill Caputo <logos...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This is fantastic guys... thank you. > > Agreed. > > Particularly, you can see syntax-highlighted source in the same page > now. Previously, if you clicked through to a function and clicked > through to the source, it sent you to a github page that (usually) > hung Firefox for a full minute with 100% CPU use before displaying the > function source. > > The syntax highlighting is a bit odd though. Symbols in operator > position are either magenta (usually) or pale gray. The former > includes most functions (some are black instead) and some macros, like > lazy-seq and when-let. The latter includes all special forms and some > macros, like let. The dividing lines are not clear -- macros can be > either magenta or gray, and functions (including core functions) can > be magenta or black (ex.: keep is black, first is magenta). > > I'd suggest it should be core functions get pink, core macros and > special forms get ... not light gray, probably, but something else. > Orange seems to be unused. Non-core macros could be dark purple and > non-core functions black. > > Also, the dark blue on (mostly) delimiters might be made a bit > lighter, to contrast better with black symbols commonly close by. The > green for literals is fine, or maybe could be darkened slightly. > > Incidentally, are all keywords dark blue, or is there some way it > tells when they are basically syntax (for ... :when) and when they are > basically data (assoc foo :bar baz)? One could heuristically do a > pretty good job of separating the two cases by looking for the > immediately enclosing form's operator to be a macro or a function, or > at least a macro from a particular set of core macros (cond, for, ...) > or not. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
