#19041: Better description of docstrings in the developer guide
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: documentation | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Vincent | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Delecroix, Jori Mäntysalo | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | d01d36d74b80e44b6676c82b5ae02247e3200e30
u/jmantysalo/19041 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Now it is wednesday. Should we go with this?
I think that "this object" is OK.
For example `maximal_antichains()` in posets returns just a list, whereas
`antichains()` returns more complex data structure. The latter one has
explicit output type (but at #18941 I suggest a slight modification to
it).
It could be argued that `maximal_antichains()` should also say that the
return type is a list (of lists). But should a user looking at example
guess from `[[0], [1, 2], [1, 3], [4]]` the type? I think yes, but this
can be argued.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19041#comment:17>
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.
