#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):
First of all, I am very glad to see someone interested in making better
documentation, even when it comes to small things!
Should we have even manual for documenting "common special types" of
functions? "If the function has no arguments and only returns `True` or
`False`, then do like this: - -"?
What do you think about `hamiltonian_cycle()` and `is_hamiltonian()` on
generic graphs vs. `dimension()` and it's `certificate`-option on posets?
Those seems to be OK, but in general: when to have "factor" and when
"is_prime(certificate=True)"?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19041#comment:24>
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.
