I can stick a subtle grey title above the methods stating 'Methods', that'd let the audience double-realise they're looking at methods, even though it's obvious since they're in a class's declaration page.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Levi Morrison <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter Cowburn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8 January 2013 16:34, Paul Dragoonis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was under the impression those were static methods, then we should > >> DEFINITELY get rid of this crappy class prefix on the left. Wether it's > >> nice or not from a UI standpoint, it's fundamentally broken and > misleading > >> and should be removed from there, not even considering design things. > >> > >> I'm going to make this patch, if someone can come up with a good reason > to > >> mislead people, speak up and we can revert the commit. > > > > I don't have a *good* reason, more a vague niggling doubt. I think > > the assumption that "everyone" (not to quote anybody) trips over :: > > and assumes they are all static methods is not going to carry much > > weight. Either way, who's to say that getting rid of the class name > > entirely won't raise another issue: people will assume they're > > functions rather than class methods! > > > > I have to say, occasionally people read the function prototypes and > > try to use ClassName::method() mistakenly but I have never seen or > > heard of anyone confused about the navigation link titles (until > > today). > > > > Removing the class name disassociates the method from what it belongs > > to. That hurts my brain. Please, don't get rid of the classes. > > > > P.S. Didn't we fix this with some CSS magic at some point, rather than > > injecting HTML? Maybe I imagined that or it's buried someone in my > > local checkout. > > > > P.P.S. I'm too late. Darn. > > Perhaps simply leaving the `::` would help distinguish them as class > methods vs normal functions without the bloat of the full-on class > name? >
