#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|
b9f84d83799c1c37e50599e5426bd8c7632b8fa2
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:5 vdelecroix]:
> Replying to [comment:4 jmantysalo]:
> > 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.
Now there is at least explicit wording. I think that it is a place for
another ticket to unify the documentation.
>> And btw, should every function document the output type?
> No. Neither the `INPUT` nor the `OUTPUT` sections are mandatory.
But developer guide says "This is not optional.":
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/coding_basics.html
#documentation-strings . I think that this could be corrected. See #17693
comment 16.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19008#comment:7>
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.
