Re: Style mechanism discussion

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> 
> > Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> > > Another question is whether we should at least try to group the styles 
> > > in some sensible way. Probably even using subsections. Opinions?
> > 
> > As long as they've got obvious names, I don't think it matters.  Calling
> > things e.g. section.foo and section.bar is only better than foo and bar if
> > section is really adding to the information, and even in that case it's
> > probably easier just to change the name to section_foo and section_bar ---
> > I don't think use of different namespaces is really necessary here.  Unless
> > I've missed the point of this.
> 
> I think Sven is talking entirely about organizing the documentation into
> sections, not renaming the styles themselves.

That's what I meant. Putting things together that belong together.
Like auto-description+format+verbose or the styles that are now used
on a per-group or per-match basis. Should also make it easier to
document how they are used without repeating it too often.

I haven't really tried to categorize them yet, though.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx