[J3] Suggested editorial change

[Malcolm Cohen]

Hi folks,

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

For multiple forms, I’d probably go for putting both forms on the same line when they fit (as they probably would for SUM, for example), and splitting them otherwise. The existing text has “or” between each form, so  I might retain that, e.g.  beginning the follow-on line with “or”. We’ll see how it comes out.

 

I was intending to hyperlink the names as a matter of course... I generally insert hyperlinks when editing (virtually no papers say anything about hyperlinking, leaving it entirely up to me).

 

I agree with Steve that this is a summary table, YAML would be inappropriate.

 

Cheers,

-- 

..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.

 

From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> On Behalf Of Steve Lionel via J3
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 10:04 PM
To: j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
Cc: Steve Lionel <steve at stevelionel.com>
Subject: Re: [J3] Suggested editorial change

 

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 separately.

 

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

 

Steve

 

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.

 

 

 

Disclaimer

The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. Please see our  <https://www.nag.co.uk/content/privacy-notice> Privacy Notice for information on how we process personal data and for details of how to stop or limit communications from us.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20200721/5ee1a93f/attachment.htm>