On Mar 17, 9:59 am, Martin Albrecht <m...@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:35 AM, John H Palmieri <jhpalmier...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Do we have any conventions or standards for the use of LaTeX in
> > > docstrings? Consider this:
>
> > > r"""
> > > This computes the integral homology `H_d(X, ZZ)` of `X` in
> > > dimension `d`.
> > > """
>
> > > versus
>
> > > r"""
> > > This computes the integral homology `H_d(X, \mathbb{Z})` of `X` in
> > > dimension `d`.
> > > """
>
> > > (or with \mathbf{Z} instead of \mathbb{Z}). The first of these looks
> > > better with interactive help ('sage: homology?'), and the second looks
> > > better in the reference manual. So which should we use? Should we
> > > have a style guide which settles such issues?
>
> > My vote would be for `H_d(X, \ZZ)` (for easier typing), combined with
> > some sort of LaTeX-to-plain-text processing to change \ZZ to Z or ZZ
> > (I'm not sure which). (We have some LaTeX-to-plain-text already,
> > although it could definitely be improved.)
I think that from the command line, backslashes are dropped already,
so \ZZ turns into ZZ.
>
> Can't we just define a global macro like before?
>
> e.g. \newcommands{\ZZ}{\mathbb{ZZ}}
For this case, probably yes (although I'm not sure how to do it), but
the general question remains: when writing docstrings, how do we
manage the balance between correct LaTeX for the reference manual with
more readable pseudo-LaTeX for interactive help?
John
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
