Gtkmm documentation quality

[Jiergir Ogoerg <f35f22fan gmail com>]

Hi,

I've worked with gtkmm and used its documentation for like 2 years, at first I thought I'll get used to its issues but it still didn't happen.

Coming from Java I see here and there obvious and frustrating issues, are these by design or can actually be improved?

A few examples:

- List methods alphabetically. The most obvious and irritating one. By far. In Java I don't need to read the whole list when searching for a given function nor bring up a search dialog box to search for it, I just look down, to say, "set_size(..)" and see if it's there, if not I know there's no such method - fast, intuitive and simple. Currently the gtkmm documentation seems to list the methods chaotically, i.e. the method "activate()" for Gtk::MenuItem is listed in the middle of the functions list, while in Java it would be the first one. The docs seem to try to compensate that by putting related  methods together, but to me this isn't helpful at all.

- Differentiate constructors from methods more clearly, put them into different (HTML) tables, make the tables more professional.

Here's a screenshot of how Java does this:
https://sites.google.com/site/f34documentation/

- The layout in general isn't well shaped, maybe it's the CSS to blame. In Java for example the methods are listed in rows colored differently (zebra style) like in a file browser, which is handy.

- If a method is deprecated put a bold "deprecated since v x.x" right near its name, not in the description section - it's handier this way, as in Java.

I don't have experience creating/designing documentation, so I'm not sure I could do this if anyone assigns me to do this myself, but I'd be very happy if anyone can do this and push these changes upstream. I could suggest further improvements if there's people willing to do this.