On Fri, 04 May 2012 10:59:46 -0400, Jakob Ovrum <jakobov...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 4 May 2012 at 14:48:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
packages that a module is in. For example, etc.c.sqlite3 is in
packages etc and c. If we make those breadcrumbs instead of part of a
large tree, it can get around your worry about whitespace, because they
don't need separate indentation.
That's a great idea, but where in the tree would it appear? What would
happen to the rest of the modules, should they be indented like they are
now? Wouldn't that look a little weird?
I was envisioning eliminating the rest of the tree, and you'd have to
click on one of the breadcrumbs to get it back. But that might be weird.
Something like:
etc . c .
sqlite3
* func1
* func2
...
And then you click on etc or c, and get the module tree back (either
dynamically or after a round-trip from the server).
The idea is, when you are navigating in a module, you are interested in
the module, not the rest of the modules.
I personally am not as much concerned about how many clicks it takes to
navigate as much as I'm concerned about making the tree more focused on
what you are doing now.
-Steve
