2009/1/3 mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com>: > > > > On Jan 3, 9:34 am, "John Cremona" <john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi John, > >> A different but related point: where is it decided which source files >> are converted into documentation and which are not? For example, in >> the hyperelliptic curves section there are several files with almost >> nothing in them; while in the elliptic curves section there's nothing >> from files ell_point.py and weierstrass_morphism.py (and maybe >> others). >> >> John > > In the old documentation this was controlled via devel/doc/ref/files, > I am not sure how this is controlled in the new documentation. One > aspect of this review is certainly to get more of the files in Sage > into the documentation, i.e. so far neither the Species code nor the > SageWords library is in 3.2.3's ref manual. But they are in 3.3, so if > you see some files with nice docstrings that is not in the ref manual > please open a ticket to get them in.
I have done so (#4933), as there 16 files in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves which are missing! The sickening thing is that this was not done before, since these 16 files have escaped the conversion to Sphinx. I had wrongly assumed that the change to REST had been carried out on every source file, but not so... John I think some files that are > affected by this is the potting documentation after the refactoring, > but I will see how that is worked out with the new patches. > > Just like the 100% coverage we should make it mandatory that new files > in the Sage library are added to the documentation since they should > have 100% coverage :) > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
