#9976: Decorated functions/methods have generic signature in documentation
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Reporter: jsrn | Owner: jsrn
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.7
Component: documentation | Keywords: sphinx, documentation, cython
inspection
Author: jsrn, Simon King | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Simon King | Merged:
Work_issues: |
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Comment(by SimonKing):
Replying to [comment:164 jsrn]:
> One might disagree with this of course. So, is this something that you
have seen many places in Sage (so that it is completely
acceptable/encouraged doctesting)? Or is it because this particular
doctest is impossible to write using dynamic objects (I haven't really yet
fully understood which of the functions work on dynamic objects and which
only on file-read ones)? Or is there a third reason?
Certainly the new test for sage_getfile, sage_getsource and
sage_getsourcelines all have to use something that has a source file. So,
a dynamic definition in Python would not work, since no file would be
created - with the patch, introspection for Cython somehow works better
than for Python, since there is always a file involved when you compile
Cython code.
However, the functools.partial test for sage_getargspec and sage_getdoc
could be replaced by a "dynamic" test, if you prefer.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9976#comment:166>
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
