#19041: Better description of docstrings in the developer guide
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: documentation | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Vincent Delecroix | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vdelecroix/19041 | 3ad491279463baf80daaf525430cd043629dc1b0
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:2 ncohen]:
> What would you think of splitting it into 'INPUT' and 'OUTPUT' entries?
+1 to this from me. But should we wait if others complain at sage-devel?
Some might argue for example that in Python the function signature shows
if there is no input at all, but output can not be seen directly from it.
And when we are at this, maybe take few days to think...? Maybe we should
add for example a paragraph on assumptions? What about `self` - I have
tried to remove them from docstring.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19041#comment:4>
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.
