#3342: [with spkg, needs review] bizarre source code introspection output
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: was | Owner: tba
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-4.0.2
Component: documentation | Keywords:
Reviewer: | Author:
Merged: |
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment(by jhpalmieri):
By the way, there are similar problems with other docstrings and source
code retrieval: type {{{GroupAlgebra??}}} or {{{SteenrodAlgebra??}}}. The
former yields lines looking like this:
{{{
return GroupAlgebras(self.base_ring())
Constructor information:
}}}
(not too bad, but there should be an extra blank line before "Constructor
information:") while the latter gives
{{{
return SteenrodAlgebra_generic(p=p, basis=basis_name)Call
docstring:
}}}
There should be two blank lines before "Call docstring".
The new version of the spkg has a slight disadvantage: if you ask for
docstrings, not source, in situations like these ({{{x.is_zero?}}},
{{{GroupAlgebra?}}}, {{{SteenrodAlgebra?}}}), then there are maybe two new
blank lines between the main part of the docstring and "Class docstring",
"Constructor information", or "Call docstring". We could get rid of these
with yet more tinkering, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
When refereeing, the only new thing in the ipython spkg is the patch to
OInspect.py.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3342#comment:2>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
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-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
