William Stein wrote:
> Incidentally, the whole sage documentation structure started from
> the Python documentation (probably Python 2.4), which I just
> motivated to be the Sage manuals instead. I had experimented
> a lot with automated tools like epydoc, etc., and found that they
> break a lot on the incredibly complicated Sage library, they don't
> play well with Cython code (which is nearly 1/3rd of Sage?), and
> and they just don't feel as well organized and readable as something
> that a person has to spend time putting together. The current
> documentation -- though not comprehensive -- tends to only
> have things in it that are "reasonably usable and stable", so the
> stuff that epydoc would pick up that is really a mess isn't there.
>
> That said, *pydoc has probably improved a lot in the last 2 years
> (since I last used it), and it would be good to have some 100%
> complete autogenerated variant of the reference manual in
> addition to the current more manually organized one.
Is one requirement for any such system the ability to deal with math in
the documentation? After browsing for a little bit, it seems like that
is a sticky point that many systems don't address, other than pydoc,
though epydoc does have some sort of construct for math ( X{x+y} ).
It's nice now to have the documentation in latex so that we can write a
mathematical explanation.
-Jason
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
