I'm a bit confused - since updating to doxygen 1.8.1, I notice that table columns don't line up any more, and I get a warning that the HTML_ALIGN_MEMBERS option has been depreciated.
The change log for 1.8.1 is a bit vague on this:
Member sections are now each rendered in a separate table. This makes the HTML_ALIGN_MEMBERS option obsolete.
However, the command reference states:
HTML_ALIGN_MEMBERS
If the HTML_ALIGN_MEMBERS tag is set to YES, the members of classes, files or namespaces will be aligned in HTML using tables. If set to NO a bullet list will be used.
Note: Setting this tag to NO will become obsolete in the future, since I only intent to support and test the aligned representation.
However, it looks like the new version does NOT support the aligned representation, unless I'm missing something?
Could anyone clarify? I see from diffing the before/after html that the a single table was used in the past, while the different members are now in individual tables so the alignment is lost. Is there supposed to be something locking the width of the table columns together which isn't working for me?
Kind regards,
Richard,
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi there.
I'm a bit confused - since updating to doxygen 1.8.1, I notice that table columns don't line up any more, and I get a warning that the HTML_ALIGN_MEMBERS option has been depreciated.
The change log for 1.8.1 is a bit vague on this:
However, the command reference states:
Note: Setting this tag to NO will become obsolete in the future, since I only intent to support and test the aligned representation.
However, it looks like the new version does NOT support the aligned representation, unless I'm missing something?
Could anyone clarify? I see from diffing the before/after html that the a single table was used in the past, while the different members are now in individual tables so the alignment is lost. Is there supposed to be something locking the width of the table columns together which isn't working for me?
Kind regards,
Richard,