#18618: sandpile revisions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dperkinson | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: sandpile | Merged in:
Authors: David Perkinson | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/dperkinson/sandpile_revisions | 9b10bf5e5372b9f2dcb3dd9857304bb4dc43547e
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by dperkinson):
I have just pushed changes in response to the (very helpful) comments
above. The INPUT sections of the docstrings are all standardized now, as
are the NOTE, WARNING, etc., sections. ``!SandpileExamples`` has the
"new-class" style. The help functions are now automated rather than hard-
wired, as advised.
Should I remove every instance of INPUT for which there is no input (None)
and, separately, every instance of OUTPUT for which there is no output
(None)? The documentation for developers at sagemath.org states that
every function must have an INPUT and OUTPUT statement, and further that
this "is not optional".
At any rate, for this new version, with my local version of Sage, all
tests passed for "sage -t", and the html and pdf documentation built
without problems.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18618#comment:18>
Sage <http://www.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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
