User talk:DavidJCobb/Function table syntax
Nice! These templates look really cool. And they are easy to edit due to the well-made template, which is the hardest part about tables usually. The only thing that looks a little weird to me is including the type in the Syntax column - that seems like it should only be in the Function column.
- Thanks for the kind words. The code for the table row template minus the type in the Syntax column is as follows. (I've elected to omit the NOINCLUDE tags for brevity.)
|-
|style="background:#{{FunctionTableColor|{{{odd}}}|F7F7F7|FFFFFF}};vertical-align:top;text-align:right;padding-right:0"|'''{{{type|}}} '''
|style="background:#{{FunctionTableColor|{{{odd}}}|F7F7F7|FFFFFF}};vertical-align:top;padding-left:0"|'''[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]]'''
|style="background:#{{FunctionTableColor|{{{odd}}}|F7F7F7|FFFFFF}};vertical-align:top"|{{{text}}}
|style="background:#{{FunctionTableColor|{{{odd}}}|F7F7F7|FFFFFF}};vertical-align:top"|'''{{{name}}}'''<nowiki>''{{{args}}}''</nowiki>
- DavidJCobb (talk) 2015-05-01T21:20:28 (EDT)
I like em, although I intended for the syntax column to be removed when I wrote up that idea I still don't see the need for syntax on the script objects I've never used it but then again I started using the source files for that information early on due to the wiki always being incomplete or just haphazardly thrown together. I guess syntax is here to stay its been on the pages for years removing it would be a fools edit :). Interesting design for the return type I like it, I wonder how it would go with sorting? Might make the header a bit crowded but the functionality might be useful to some people. Otherwise I think it's a good compact table design nice work and the templates are simple to use.