> 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 to readers. Perhaps a middle ground would be to only print the parent module name, rather than the entire module "path". On Monday, 22 August 2016 22:30:39 UTC+2, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote: > > 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 names? > > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 10:23:35 PM UTC+2, Michael Hatherly wrote: >> >> 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 documentation >> solution for Julia that any package author can simply pick up and use >> without having >> to worry about anything other than writing great content for their docs. >> It's definitely not there just yet, but we'll get there soon enough I'm >> sure. >> >> On Monday, 22 August 2016 18:58:43 UTC+2, David Anthoff wrote: >>> >>> Yes, this is really cool, much appreciated!! >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* julia...@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia...@googlegroups.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *Christoph Ortner >>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:56 PM >>> *To:* julia-users <julia...@googlegroups.com> >>> *Subject:* [julia-users] Re: ANN: Documenter.jl 0.3 >>> >>> >>> >>> this is really nice; thank you for putting this package together. >>> >>> On Saturday, 20 August 2016 12:36:21 UTC+1, Morten Piibeleht wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:18:37 AM UTC+3, Christoph Ortner wrote: >>> >>> I want to give this a try but I can't find the example of HTML output, >>> which is supposed to be in test/html? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> I apologize, the linked docs are a bit outdated and will be updated >>> shortly. As was already mentioned, since Documenter uses the HTML output >>> for its own docs, `docs/make.jl` is the best example. >>> >>> >>> >>> `mkdocs.yml` has been dropped indeed. Instead the site's structure and >>> title have to be defined in `make.jl`, via the (currently undocumented) >>> `sitename` and `pages` options. >>> >>> >>> >>> The HTML site gets built into `build/` directly, where we normally have >>> outputted the processed Markdown files (with the filenames being translated >>> as `path/file.md` -> `path/file.html`). >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:53:23 AM UTC+3, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Morten Piibeleht <morten.p...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>> [*] Developed as part of Morten’s Google Summer of Code project >>> <https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/dashboard/project/5046486001778688/details/> >>> . >>> >>> Since I think that page is private, here's the description of the >>> project: >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, the correct link should have been >>> https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/projects/#5046486001778688 (but it >>> basically only contains the description Stefan already posted). >>> >>>
