Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...

Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.

ssuukk wrote:
> Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...
> 

ssuukk wrote:

> Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...
>
Very nice indeed.

"ssuukk" <ssuukk@.go2.pl> wrote in message news:buonq7$24ak$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.
>
> ssuukk wrote:
> > Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...

This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you add in the ctod.html, etc., pages too?

ssuukk wrote:

> Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.

Do you mean with `rough', that the indentation is not continued, when a new page starts?

Did you notice, that `\0' is wrongly converted to ` 0' or even only `0' at several places?

So long.
-- 
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/ 2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1

ssuukk wrote:
> Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.
Good work.  Looks quite polished to me.

I did notice a couple very minor bugs:

Page 13, Second bullet item:
"between." should be "between . "
"The." should be "The . "

Page 14, "Productivity/Declaration vs Definition":
some more period problems

I suspect there are some other period issues in other parts of the document (I didn't read whole document).

But, still, it looked great!  (And I think it's much easier to read as a PDF than as a series of webpages.)

Thanks for taking the time to do this.

> 
> ssuukk wrote:
> 
>> Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...

-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

Walter wrote:
> "ssuukk" <ssuukk@.go2.pl> wrote in message
> news:buonq7$24ak$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.
>>
>>ssuukk wrote:
>>
>>>Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give
>>>your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...
> 
> 
> This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you add in
> the ctod.html, etc., pages too?
> 

No prob. Just tell me if you think it should be divided differentyly (I mean chapters, subsection nesting and so on).

Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Did you notice, that `\0' is wrongly converted to ` 0' or even only `0'
> at several places?

Yeah, such small things connected with LaTeX escape sequences...


> Do you mean with `rough', that the indentation is not continued, when a new page starts?

Well if you find such place - tell me. But I doub't such things can happen in LaTeX.

"ssuukk" <ssuukk@.go2.pl> wrote in message news:buqjl8$241n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you
add in
> > the ctod.html, etc., pages too?
> No prob. Just tell me if you think it should be divided differentyly (I mean chapters, subsection nesting and so on).

Redesigning the layout is probably too much work, I'd just stick with the layout of the html version. Especially since eventually it'll need to be done again :-(

Walter wrote:
> "ssuukk" <ssuukk@.go2.pl> wrote in message
> news:buqjl8$241n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Walter wrote:
>>
>>>This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you
> 
> add in
> 
>>>the ctod.html, etc., pages too?
>>
>>No prob. Just tell me if you think it should be divided differentyly (I
>>mean chapters, subsection nesting and so on).
> 
> 
> Redesigning the layout is probably too much work, I'd just stick with the
> layout of the html version. Especially since eventually it'll need to be
> done again :-(
> 
Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.