Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that >> plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step >> backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old >> format. > The person who made that comment retracted later. > If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can > discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to > the old format. I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation. I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice. regards, tom lane
