-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
docs: Rework consistency and style #986
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
TL;DR still a WIP, and I have a few questions. I added a few things to the documentation that seemed like they were missing. There's a few things I'm not sure about and so I've not touched, like the I'm also not quite sure about why some function parameters have defaults set in their documentation comments, while others simply trust Also, are there any plans to use a Typst-specific autoformatter? I understand |
|
I've been working on a few other changes.
I also have some more doubts, added to the ones in the previous comment:
|
I guess I forgot to update the comment. |
Nice! They are that long, because I think the current (non-Resurect manual.pdf) branch is unable to correctly parse parameter documentation split over multiple lines. |
Done. |
I'm assumming you mean the |
|
Note that with the resurrection of the PDF manual, I also want to convert all the web-pages (custom-types.mdx, ...) to Typst. Changing docstrings to non-typst format will lead to a lot of merge conflicts. |
This is a fixup commit amounting to the prior commits made on this branch but incorporating the changes required after the `manual.pdf` rework on cetz-package#974.
Just committed all the prior changes updated to use only Typst syntax. I have removed changes to |
The problem is, that Typst' native links |
I'll just leave the |
There are some scattered comments around the documentation comments that seem to replicate to a smaller degree the actual documentation comments. I'm not sure whether I should remove them as well.