[Mono-docs-list] xslt update -- it's getting interesting

Martin Aliger martin_aliger@email.cz
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:58:52 +0100 (CET)


It looks great! I do not test previous releases, but this is really amazing!

> Overloading works, but I don't like the way it's laid out.  Right now, I
> don't include arguments, so you see a bunch of identical method names,
> so it's confusing.  When I do include arguments, however, it's too
> cluttered and, yes, confusing.  Does anybody have any suggestions on how
> to nicely handle overloading?

Overloads on method page looks good - maybe only anchors/links to overloaded method could be added.

<A #somewhere1> Void Write (String value ) 
<A #somewhere2> Void Write (Char[] buffer, Int32 index, Int32 count ) 
<A #somewhere3> Void Write (Char[] buffer ) 
<A #somewhere4> Void Write (Char value ) 

BTW: overloading is always confusing IMO. So docs will be as well little odd, but we should try to add as much clarity to it as is possible. And that overload summary I find good for it.

> - There's very little indication of whether a member is static / public
> / const etc.  These should be made more visible.

Yes. I already point to it several times, but nobody aims attension to this...

> Now that the basics are in place, suggestions are welcome!

Only one: In the class members page, could you add result type to method signature? Maybe parameters could be useful as well. And maybe C# similar signature should be used insted of that Name/Access columns (esp. when static/new/unsafe/... added) [I found it little confusing]

I like much more that scheme with prop/methods/cons/events/fields split up. Maybe this could be splitted simillary in public/protected view? (two levels split)

Really good work!

Martin Aliger

SB KOMPLET®  Informační ekonomický systém http://www.sb-komplet.cz  
…umíme svoji práci!