Skip to content

Conversation

@birkenfeld
Copy link
Contributor

Is this desirable? The problem I can see is that the type names might get quite long.

Fixes: #32024

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @cmr

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@emberian
Copy link
Contributor

emberian commented May 3, 2016

I think I'm in favor.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Contributor

Can you show a screenshot of what this looks like?

@birkenfeld
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sure:
shot1
shot2

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Nice but I'm afraid it's a bit too loaded. Hard choice...

@emberian
Copy link
Contributor

emberian commented May 4, 2016

To render this nicely, I think the field name and type should be on its own line, with the documentation for it following indented a bit.

@emberian
Copy link
Contributor

emberian commented May 4, 2016

(And I think the Fields header and section shouldn't be intended so much)

@birkenfeld
Copy link
Contributor Author

If no one beats me to it, I'll change this to implement @cmr's suggestions.

@birkenfeld
Copy link
Contributor Author

New try! Shots:

shot1
shot2

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

I really don't like this design. :-/

Maybe with the "[-]" thing, it would work better at first. But I don't know how we could display the field's information nicely...

@TyOverby
Copy link
Contributor

Big 👍 for me! I always felt dumb having to scroll up to check field types.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 30, 2016

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #33965) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Closing due to inactivity, but feel free to reopen with a rebase!

@birkenfeld birkenfeld deleted the issue-32024 branch August 7, 2016 07:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants