On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:38 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:25 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Attached are screenshots of the same segment of table 9.10 as before > >> and of the initial portion of 9.30, the patch against HEAD to produce > >> these, and a hacky patch on the website's main.css to get it to go > >> along. Without the last you just get all the subsidiary stuff > >> left-justified if you build with STYLE=website, which isn't impossibly > >> unreadable but it's not the desired presentation. > > > These seem very nice, and way more readable than the version with > > which you started the thread. > > I too like the layout result. > Glad you like 'em ;-). Do you have an opinion about what to do > with the operator tables --- ie do we need a column with the operator > name at the left? > > I feel like writing them as: + (date, integer) -> date makes more sense as they are mainly sorted on the operator symbol as opposed to the left operand. I think the description line is beneficial, and easy enough to skim over for the trained eye just looking for a refresher on the example syntax. David J.
