#19008: Graphs, is_subgraph documentation formatting error
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  jmantysalo         |        Owner:
           Type:  defect             |       Status:  needs_work
       Priority:  trivial            |    Milestone:  sage-6.9
      Component:  documentation      |   Resolution:
       Keywords:                     |    Merged in:
        Authors:  Jori Mäntysalo     |    Reviewers:  Vincent Delecroix
Report Upstream:  N/A                |  Work issues:
         Branch:                     |       Commit:
  u/jmantysalo/graphs__is_subgraph_documentation_formatting_error|  
4015c777f06fab584e247ab929a36d4db7b0d963
   Dependencies:                     |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by vdelecroix):

 Replying to [comment:4 jmantysalo]:
 > Well, for now we have for example
 >
 > {{{
 > is_eulerian()         Return True if the graph has a - -
 > is_planar()   Test whether the graph is - -
 > is_circular_planar()  Test whether the graph is - -
 > is_regular()  Return True if this graph is - -
 > }}}
 >
 > On #18925 and #18941 I have used "return true if" -phrasing. That can of
 course be converted, but it should be uniform in all parts of the
 software. Was there some discussion about this in sage-devel?

 I don't think so. And I agree with you that it would better be uniform.

 > And btw, should every function document the output type? As an example,
 `has_bottom()` in posets is documented as "Return True if the poset has a
 unique minimal element." in the index of functions, and then "Return True
 if the poset has a unique minimal element, and False otherwise." in the
 function itself. There is no explicit `OUTPUT`-part.

 No. Neither the `INPUT` nor the `OUTPUT` sections are mandatory. If your
 function has simple `input/output` (like a `is_X(self)` method) then it is
 fine to include the specifications in the documentation. Otherwise it is
 up to the programmer to judge whether it is clearer with or without
 `INPUT/OUTPUT`.

 Vincent

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19008#comment:5>
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.

Reply via email to