Am 21.12.2016 um 18:09 schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> On 12/21/2016 10:35 AM, clipka wrote:
>> As for the syntax, I've decided to take it into my own hands now.
> good thing i'm /going with the flow/ ... i've touched this waaaay too
> many times to justify my further involvement with the issues on this
> page. btw: look at the old page and see that i've /done/ a lot to clean
> up the one big gigantic run one sentence that this page /was/ before i
> got hold of it
Care to define "old" page?
>> You know that something is utterly wrong with the structure of a page if
>> the table of contents is preceded by an entire 2 pages worth of text.
> this is a side-effect of the half-baked reference re-sectioning that i
> was opposed to at 3.7 release ... added __NOTOC__ to suppress table of
... which now makes the thing inconsistent with the other pages (e.g.
With the pages on the Wiki being as long as they are, I'd really love to
have a TOC in there. Preferably high up on the page. Maybe the simplest
way to achieve this would be to insert a heading before the syntax pane
on all those pages. (If that sits well with you, but you don't want to
be burdened with the work, let me know and I'll do the edits.)
>> I think the description of the finish-level `fresnel` keyword and its
>> effect is utterly misplaced there, and should instead be given a section
>> of its own
> disagree ... but it's in your hands now ... correct?
I don't know. Is it? How about the rest of the docs?
I just grabbed hold of the syntax because it absolutely positively
failed to match the code, there was no ambiguity in how it would have to
be fixed, and I realized it would be far easier to just do the changes
than go into a lengthy discussion with you why it was wrong. I even
resisted a brief urge to do other changes to the syntax pane, such as
re-ordering the finish items.
Post a reply to this message