[J3] Suggested editorial change

[John Reid]

Malcolm,

Yes, this would be a good improvement. I don't like the long gaps after 
short procedure names and I don't like long proecedure names being 
continued.

John.

Malcolm Cohen via J3 wrote:
> I was just looking at Table 16.1, as one does, and wincing at the ugly 
> continuation lines sometimes due to a long intrinsic name and other 
> times due to a long argument list, and wondering if it would look better 
> than instead of
> 
>   * Four columns “Procedure”, “Arguments”, “Class”, “Description”
> 
> we had
> 
>   * Three columns “Procedure (arguments)”, “Class”, “Description”
> 
> I tried it out just on the SELECTED_whatever_KIND intrinsics, and indeed 
> it eliminated the ugly continuations, at the (minor?) cost of no longer 
> having the argument lists all line up.
> 
> I’m sure it would not eliminate all continuations, but...
> 
> ...what do people think? Does this sound like a good idea?
> 
> For most entries this is easy – it just takes deleting the first 
> ampersand on the line, but entries that would still be continued may 
> need a bit of extra work to make the continuation indented. So maybe an 
> hour or so of editing time, depending on how fussy I get about the look 
> of the result.
> 
> Of course we could go back to the original format if people decide after 
> seeing it that they don’t like it after all.
> 
> Any and all comments welcome.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> 
> ..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.
>