Re: [julia-users] Re: ANN: Documenter.jl 0.3

> Maybe it is a bit redundant to have the base module name before all the type and function names? That was done to avoid getting two docstrings for objects with the same name but from different modules appearing together, which, though probably an unlikely situation, would be a bit confusing

Re: [julia-users] Re: ANN: Documenter.jl 0.3

In my initial tests, HTML output works just perfectly - and I love the fact that it mimics Julia's documentation page. I'll let you know if I run into issues.

Re: [julia-users] Re: ANN: Documenter.jl 0.3

I haven't inspected anything in detail, but I agree with Kristoffer that my first impression is that I really like the new look. Nice work, folks. Best, --Tim On Monday, August 22, 2016 1:30:39 PM CDT Kristoffer Carlsson wrote: > Just from looking at the generated docs for the Documenter

Re: [julia-users] Re: ANN: Documenter.jl 0.3

Just from looking at the generated docs for the Documenter package I would say that I strongly like the layout and "feel" of the HTML output. Much better than what I have seen from using the Mkdocs. Maybe it is a bit redundant to have the base module name before all the type and function

Re: [julia-users] Re: ANN: Documenter.jl 0.3

Yes, Morten's additions to the package over the summer have really be great! I'd also like to re-emphasise his call for feedback and suggestions (there's already been lots, but we're always looking for more) on the new HTML output, and the package in general. We want to end up with a

RE: [julia-users] Re: ANN: Documenter.jl 0.3

Yes, this is really cool, much appreciated!! From: julia-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-users@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Christoph Ortner Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:56 PM To: julia-users Subject: [julia-users] Re: ANN: Documenter.jl 0.3 this