On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:08 PM, mhampton hampto...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to object to the policy you are proposing. I would like to
first emphasize that I completely support the goal of having functions
include INPUT and OUTPUT blocks. But the policy you are proposing is
far too rigid.
On Dec 29, 2:32 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
We aren't writing enough INPUT/OUTPUT blocks to describe the input and
output of functions. I want to encourage this very, very strongly
since I think it will make Sage much more usable, and many other
people have requested it. I
I'd like to object to the policy you are proposing. I would like to
first emphasize that I completely support the goal of having functions
include INPUT and OUTPUT blocks. But the policy you are proposing is
far too rigid.
As one example, imagine that a Sage user finds a documentation error.
Hi!
On 19 Dez., 21:23, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
A TESTS block is certainly a good thing to have for the arithmetic
operators.
+1
For _add_ etc, the type of both in- and output is clear (IIRC,
coercion etc happens before). But it should certainly be tested.
2
Sounds good. That's the current requirement.
David
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Simon King simon.k...@nuigalway.ie wrote:
Hi!
On 19 Dez., 21:23, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
A TESTS block is certainly a good thing to have for the arithmetic
operators.
+1
On Dec 15, 10:16 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
It has been brought to my attention that many docstrings in Sage do
not explicitly and clearly list their input and output in INPUT: and
OUTPUT: blocks. There are only 2711 OUTPUT blocks and 4371 INPUT
blocks in sage-4.3:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:46 AM, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote:
You can also use Sphinx/reST markup for this, described in the same
place. Here is an example of how that looks:
http://sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/homology/
