                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5E4587C7-BBB5-4AAE-93EB-F24F0A0A6D18@kotka.de>
References: <ffee1895-8625-4ed8-aba8-a8ef8197421f@x1g2000prc.googlegroups.com> 
	<010EF569-6DD3-46FF-93F9-1DF89AE6BBE8@gmail.com> <78a31934-6eb1-43f5-a68e-d97f5350a405@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> 
	<c75c66ff-a6b2-4018-8cac-5cda96b21977@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> 
	<20fc5b5b-bc42-476d-805d-cba0819fbbb3@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> 
	<5d77b721-0e8b-4b47-8382-9842d33d5d3c@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> 
	<5E4587C7-BBB5-4AAE-93EB-F24F0A0A6D18@kotka.de>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Message-ID: <166c6591-8be3-4508-a155-463ffbc58e2a@j13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: ClojureDocs.org
From: j-g-faustus <johannes.fries...@gmail.com>
To: Clojure <clojure@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jul 13, 8:37=A0pm, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can I suggest omitting the "Table of contents" sidebar when printing?
> I've not tried printing the document to see how it looks, but removing
> the sidebar would be an essential starting point...

Why would anyone want to print it?

I occasionally print longer texts like specifications, but for
reference material like Javadoc, ClojureDocs, the Ruby cheat sheet and
this page, I think HTML is a far superior format due to links and
browser search.
And 40+ loose single sheets is a rather cumbersome package unless you
have access to a book binder.

But if at least two people feel that they would really like to print
it out, I can skip the TOC on print.

(Making it look _nice_ on paper is a whole different ballgame, then
I'd have to look into pagination and page layouts, perhaps by
converting to DocBook or LaTex. That's outside the scope of what I
intended to do.)


On Jul 13, 10:04=A0pm, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> Some comments after quickly skimming through:
> ...
> PS: I'm apologise if some this seems to be nit-picking.

Not at all, I'm still learning the language and happy to get the
details clarified.

The second form of condp and the #_ were omitted simply because I
didn't know about them, thanks for the heads-up.

For quoted lists, I take your point.
For the sequence operations examples it was somewhat deliberate, in
that a sequence is a very different datatype from a vector but pretty
much the same as a list.
I had a bug in some code that conj'ed elements onto a vector, but for
some reason it would switch direction in the middle and start adding
elements at the opposite end. It took me a while to figure out that it
was because concat'ing two vectors doesn't return a vector.
So I wanted to emphasize that using a sequence op on anything other
than a list is also a conversion from one datatype to another.
But I'll take another look, there may be better ways.

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. I'll include them with the
next update.


Sincerely,