CGAL users discussion list

[Andreas Meyer <>]

Eivind LM wrote:
> [....per-package refpage...]
> This is very close to what I am looking for, see below.
>
> > Additionaly, there is a per-package list of "entities", one which 
> > lists all classes, concepts, functions etc in alphabetic order, and 
> > one which lists them per category, see for example 
> > http://www.cgal.org/Manual/3.3/doc_html/cgal_manual/Triangulation_2_ref/Chapter_intro.html 
>
> This is indeed useful too, but as a quick reference I prefer a 
> complete list, so I don't have to identify and click my way to the 
> right package first.
>
> [........]
> Well, so now I found the reference for my Edge, but it took a minute, 
> and I almost forgot why I needed it. I feel sorry for the guy who is 
> looking for Edge in SurfaceMeshTriangulation_3, as he will have to try 
> 10 of the blue arrows until he finds his as the last one :)

Although he could have looked at the status-bar of the browser to see 
that the first nine entries probably are not what he needs, I agree that 
this is not really convenient, let alone obvious.

> So to enable easier search, I think the blue arrow links should be 
> replaced with something that indicates what the link points to, maybe 
> something like this:
>
>   Edge
>    StraightSkeletonBuilderTraits_2::Edge
>    PolygonOffsetBuilderTraits_2::Edge
>    CGAL::Triangulation_2<Traits,Tds>::Edge
>    TriangulationDataStructure_2::Edge
>    ...
>    SurfaceMeshTriangulation_3::Edge
> That way, my search for ":Edge" would get me where I wanted in no 
> time. I'm sure it could be done in other ways as well. I just don't 
> want to think (or even worse, try and fail on the blue arrows) to find 
> my reference.
>
> Thanks for reading this far :)

Well, actually it's very nice to see constructive feedback for the 
manual tools :-) I agree that when you are in front of some piece of 
code, you dont always want to care how the concepts and classes are 
organized into packages, so replacing the arrows with more descriptive 
text in the spirit of above seems well suited for that. You still have 
to select TDS_2, but selecting it from a list of some code-oriented 
keywords seems easier than searching for the correct package name.

Currently, we are a little short on resources for the manual tools, so 
it might take some time. But, again, thanks for the feedback!

Best Regards,
Andreas Meyer