[J3] Suggested editorial change

Steve Lionel steve at stevelionel.com
Mon Jul 20 09:04:03 EDT 2020

I am in favor of the two-column approach. I also very much like Bill's 
suggestion to make the procedure names links for the reasons stated. For 
procedures that have multiple argument list forms, I would list each one 

I am not in favor of the YAML approach here - this level of detail 
properly belongs with each individual procedure description.


On 7/19/2020 2:48 AM, 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20200720/5e483cc5/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the J3 mailing list