proebuck (60) [Avatar] Offline
Despise the new callout style. As example, see Listing 2.3.

Go back to using dingbat circled digits (e.g., ?) like everyone else on the planet does, rather than the current hash-letter scheme (e.g., #A).

[Edit] Post replaced my preferred callout example.
See for what I'm talking about.
welkie (24) [Avatar] Offline
I thought the hash style was something Jeremy was using for these MEAP drafts and that it would be replaced by the circled numbers later. I would be disappointed if it was kept this way. The code examples with the inline numbered labels are one of the things I like most about Manning books. I wasn't a fan of having to keep looking up and down back and forth to read the labels for #1, #2, #3, etc.
jeremy.wilken (207) [Avatar] Offline
This is a decision by Manning on how they wish to format their comments. I'll share your comments with them, but I personally cannot change the way they are doing callouts.
welkie (24) [Avatar] Offline
Gotcha. Please do forward it to them. I can't speak for everyone, but for me, the numbered arrows with inline comments were very effective. smilie
helen.stergius (15) [Avatar] Offline
Hi - The # style is only during development, while the book is in its MEAP form.
I've attached an excerpt from Jeremy's book with the final style.

It does, as Jeremy has pointed out to me, make it hard to reference a specific code block in the text, which the cue balls were pretty good at.

I'm going to pass that on.