On 9/29/07, Edward Z. Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> > I really think we should be consistent here and not add any special
> > treatment for class reference pages.
>
> Ah, I was misunderstanding the previous behavior. Would it e possible to
> move the class links to after the Introduction, in a section called
> "Classes" or the like?
Its a known bug i phd, the TOC should be at the bottom of the page
with "Table of Contents" title.
>
> > I'm not following, you mean removing the return values/parameters from
> > the class definitions?
>
> It would look something like:
>
> class ReflectionFunction extends ReflectionFunctionAbstract implements
> Reflector
> {
> /* defined in this class */
> public string $name;
> void __construct( mixed $name );
> // ...
> /* inherited from ReflectionFunctionAbstract */
> private void __clone();
> void getDocComment();
> }
It is impossible for any renderer to know to which class these methods
belong to, so it would link to reflectionfunction.getdoccomment method
which is incorrect, it should link to
reflectionfunctionabstract.getdoccomment.
The only possibly solution is to keep the current markup but remove
everything up to (and including) the "::".
I don't know if that really is a good idea, but it is a possibility...
> > By putting extensions in categories we only list the extensions which
> > are relevant to the extension which we are currently viewing. [snip]
>
> Sounds good. We should, however, still maintain an alphabetical list.
We could change the current php.net/extensions to alphabetical list, I
however don't see the point.
The whole idea behind the new extension structure is to get rid of
this huge list of extensions.
-Hannes
