On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>> After looking at the generated html version, I find that the "1/param" and
>> "2/param" formula are very simple and pretty easy to read, and they would
>> not be really enhanced with additional spacing.
>>
>> ISTM that adaptative spacing (no spacing for level 1 operations, some for
>> higher level) is a good approach for readability, ie:
>>
>> f(i) - f(i+1)
>> ^ no spacing here
>> ^ some spacing here
>>
>> So I would suggest to keep the submitted version, unless this is a blocker.
>
> Well, I think with the ".0" version it looks more like floating-point
> math, and I like the extra white-space. But I'm happy to hear other
> opinions.
- defined as <literal>(max + min) / 2.0</>, then value <replaceable>i</>
+ defined as <literal>(max+min)/2</>, with
This thing reminds me a bit of the little of TeX I know, when writing
things like "\sqrt{1-e^2}" spaces would be printed in the converted
html, and as that's floating arythmetic, we should have as well a .0.
So I would agree on both points with Robert.
I have looked for now at the first patch and finished with the
attached while looking at it. Perhaps a committer could look already
at that?
I am still looking at the 2nd patch in more details...
--
Michael
