Re: linking to signals

[Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de>]

Hi,

Damon Chaplin wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 10:34 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 15:06 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> 
>>> I've just tried the patch and I'm afraid I don't really like the
>>> ':property' and '::signal' in the output. It seems more confusing than
>>> helpful to me.
>>>
>>> I agree about shortening the link text though. I've changed it to just
>>> use "property" and "signal". Hopefully that is good enough.
>>>
>> I disagree a bit with this. ::foo-bar is already a relatively widespread
>> conventions for referring to signals, just look through the GTK+ docs.
>> One of the big advantages of my proposal was to unify the non-link and
>> link appearance of signals. If I can't have ::foo-bar, I'd rather have
>> the long names back...
> 
> 
> I think that since the signal name is mainly used as a literal string
> within code, it makes more sense to use that string in the
> documentation.
> 
> ::foo-bar doesn't relate to anything used in code and beginners will
> just wonder 'what do the colons mean?'.
> 
> Damon

I am also for using full names. One alternative would be to decorate the link
with icons (Class, Property, Signal,...) using css. I could check if e.g. anjuta
has fitting ones and come up with a patch.

Stefan