#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 dkrenn):

 Replying to [comment:24 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: - -"?

 You mean like short examples for some special cases...sounds like a good
 idea.

 > 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)"?

 This is not that easy; I can see plus-points for both sides: Using such a
 flag means to have only *one* function for the desired functionality,
 which is usually a good thing. On the other hand, getting different a
 output type depending the input is sometimes not seen as good practice.
 In particular, the `certificate`-option does not give back the dimension,
 but only the certificate, which is kind of weird, since I would expect a
 method called `dimension` to return a dimension in any case...

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19041#comment:25>
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