Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 to "this lattice" and +1/2 to "the lattice". In either case I think it should mention in the guideline that using ``self`` is also acceptable if the sentence would become more clear. Kwankyu Lee writes: > Hi, > > I prepared H2 revised from G2 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard > to

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H4 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H4 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Secondl round poll for H6 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 In English, I understand that "foo; bar" is used if "bar" gives additional information about "foo" while "foo, bar"is used to list "foo" and "bar" on equal level. But I am not a native speaker... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel"

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

> > Here is my opinion. But a metaquestion: Why can't someone (like Kwankyu) > just got direct emails and make a summary? > Hmm. Just to make the result of the voting transparent to everyone. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

-1 I am with Jeroen on this one. On Thursday, 18 May 2017 23:25:41 UTC+1, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > Hi, > > I prepared H5 revised from G5 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard > to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for > the better. So this time* if I

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

> > My suggestion would be > > OUTPUT: > > - If ``certificate=True`` return only True or False. > - If ``certificate=False`` return either >* (True, XX), where XX is... >* (False, XX), where XX is... > > > I think this is too much information which will overlap with the INPUT

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

> As I mentioned on the other thread, since OUTPUT is not a list of things > (as opposed to INPUT), I would prefer > > OUTPUT: tuple of lattices +1 on this option (and hence -1 to the thread's suggestion). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Thu, 18 May 2017, david.coud...@inria.fr wrote: A method like `Graph().is_bipartite(certificate=False)` returns either ``True``or ``False`` when ``certificate==False``, or a tuple `(bool, dict)` when ``certificate==True``. What would be the recommended writing style for the output block ?

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 The point is that "the lattice" (or a slight variant "this lattice") is officially recommended than "``self``". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email

[sage-devel] Re: Secondl round poll for H6 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 8:55:13 AM UTC+2, Simon King wrote: > > Almost +1 > > Actually I thought this guideline has already been used, with > a minute difference: >- ``n`` -- integer (default 1), the number of repetitions > +1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: [sage-devel] Secondl round poll for H6 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

> H6. Write > > INPUT: > > - ``n`` -- integer (default: 1); the number of repetition +1. I agree with the grammatical reasons to slightly prefer ";" over "," (but I am not a native speaker). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Fri, 19 May 2017, Kwankyu Lee wrote: Hi Jori,   H2. Write if the lattice is reflexive +1 It is very important that you give this vote directly to the thread Basically the number of votes that it gets will determine whether the guideline will be put into

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H3 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 H5 is intended to be conforming with "INPUT:" block. The above example is somewhat misleading. If the output is just a "tuple of lattices" (without long additional explanation), then the entire OUTPUT block can be omitted since the one-liner can be "Return a tuple of lattices that ".

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H3 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:22:15 AM UTC+2, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > ** > H3. If you agree, flag +1; if you don't, flag -1. > +1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:17:39 AM UTC+2, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > H1. If you agree, flag +1; if you don't, flag -1. > > +1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H3 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 Kwankyu Lee writes: > Hi, > > I prepared H3 revised from G3 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard > to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for > the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the > guideline will be simply

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On 05/19/2017 02:55 AM, david.coud...@inria.fr wrote: > A method like `Graph().is_bipartite(certificate=False)` returns either > ``True``or ``False`` when ``certificate==False``, or a tuple `(bool, > dict)` when ``certificate==True``. What would be the recommended writing > style for the output

[sage-devel] Re: Secondl round poll for H6 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 4:32:58 AM UTC-5, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > +1 > > In English, I understand that "foo; bar" is used if "bar" gives additional > information about "foo" while "foo, bar"is used to list "foo" and "bar" on > equal level. But I am not a native speaker... > Actually, that

[sage-devel] python3 : help needed

Dear all, We have almost reached the state of vanilla sage building with SAGE_PYTHON3=yes (this does not mean working !). But something seems to go wrong, and I would like help to find and fix the current problem. So, for people that want to do something else than answering polls, you can try

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 On 19/05/2017 00:17, Kwankyu Lee wrote: Hi, I prepared H1 revised from G1 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the guideline will be simply

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H3 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 On 19/05/2017 00:22, Kwankyu Lee wrote: Hi, I prepared H3 revised from G3 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the guideline will be simply

Re: [sage-devel] Google Summer of Code 2017 matroids project

Welcome on board! Do not hesitate to use this list for your questions relative to Sage development in general (but use trac ticket for specific issues concerning the code). Vincent On 19/05/2017 02:13, Zachary Gershkoff wrote: Hello, This year I will be working on the matroid and graph

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:29:42 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > Strong -1 (still) > Even though this is something confusing to newcomers, I think that I have to agree with Travis. That said, I don't see why one couldn't just say "if ``self`` (the lattice) is reflexive". -- You

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

I am following Johan: +1 to "this lattice" and +1/2 to "the lattice" On 19/05/2017 00:20, Kwankyu Lee wrote: Hi, I prepared H2 revised from G2 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for the better. So this time* if I

Re: [sage-devel] Docstring standards: new Sphinx directives? New Sphinx directions?

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:04:16 AM UTC-4, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > > On Thu, 18 May 2017, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > .. INPUT:: > > > > We would need to add "INPUT", "OUTPUT", etc. as Sphinx directives. Then > we would have control over the format for the > > output. That sounds

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On 19/05/2017 20:39, kcrisman wrote: On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:29:42 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: Strong -1 (still) Even though this is something confusing to newcomers, I think that I have to agree with Travis. That said, I don't see why one couldn't just say "if ``self``

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H4 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 On 19/05/2017 00:24, Kwankyu Lee wrote: Hi, I prepared H4 revised from G4 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the guideline will be simply

[sage-devel] Re: python3 : help needed

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:51:46 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > > Dear all, > > We have almost reached the state of vanilla sage building with > SAGE_PYTHON3=yes (this does not mean working !). But something seems to go > wrong, and I would like help to find and fix the current

[sage-devel] Re: Poll for issue G1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

-1, for reasons that have already been explained by others. Generally, any reference to a programmatical object should be typographically distinguished from normal text. Hence, it should be "Let `f(x)` be the function that returns ``True`` if `x>0` and ``False`` otherwise." but not

[sage-devel] Re: Poll for issue G2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

X In some context, the technical term ``self`` might be easier to understand (for someone who knows python...) than natural language, in other context it may be the other way around Maybe +1 as a rule of thumb, but -1 as a strict rule. On 2017-05-17, Kwankyu Lee wrote: >

[sage-devel] Re: Poll for issue G3 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

-1, and very strongly -1. Reason: On 2017-05-17, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > G3. Write (1) > > Return True if the lattice is reflexive. This leaves open what the function returns if it is not reflexive. None? False? A certificate that proves that it isn't reflexive? > but do not

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 On 2017-05-18, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared H1 revised from G1 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard > to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for > the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

PS, to the +1 given earlier: I suggest that one should also write `f(x)` instead of f(x). On 2017-05-18, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared H1 revised from G1 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard > to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H4 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 On 2017-05-18, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared H4 revised from G4 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard > to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for > the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

X I still cannot give a clear +1 or -1 to the current suggestion, as it goes into the right direction but isn't flexible enough. I'd rather suggest: H2. Write "if the lattice is reflexive" unless a technical expression such as "if ``self`` is reflexive" is more easy to understand. It

[sage-devel] Re: Secondl round poll for H6 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

Almost +1 Actually I thought this guideline has already been used, with a minute difference: - ``n`` -- integer (default 1), the number of repetitions (so, "default" instead of "default:" and ")," instead of ");", since "path connected" punctuation marks are better than disconnected ones.

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

A method like `Graph().is_bipartite(certificate=False)` returns either ``True``or ``False`` when ``certificate==False``, or a tuple `(bool, dict)` when ``certificate==True``. What would be the recommended writing style for the output block ? -- You received this message because you are

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

As I mentioned on the other thread, since OUTPUT is not a list of things (as opposed to INPUT), I would prefer OUTPUT: tuple of lattices -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

[sage-devel] Re: Poll for issue G5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 Here I like that the typesetting is uniform and does not distinguish between functions with a single return type and functions with multiple return types. On 2017-05-17, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > We do a poll for adopting an official guideline for docstrings (see >

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 On 2017-05-18, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared H5 revised from G5 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard > to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for > the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

This is my last attempt to save the guideline. A Sage user has an integer X. He hit the tab key and get "X.is_prime", and then ask what this method does by entering "X.is_prime?". Imagine that he reads (1) Return whether the integer is prime. (2) Return whether this integer is prime. (3)

[sage-devel] Re: python3 : help needed

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:46:15 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:51:46 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> We have almost reached the state of vanilla sage building with >> SAGE_PYTHON3=yes (this does not mean working !). But

[sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H3 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

+1 On 2017-05-18, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared H3 revised from G3 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard > to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for > the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Poll for issue G5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 06:33:35AM +, Simon King wrote: > +1 > > Here I like that the typesetting is uniform and does not distinguish > between functions with a single return type and functions with multiple > return types. +1. Note that some (actually many) methods have a single input, and

[sage-devel] Re: Poll for issue G4 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

X on itself -1 in combination with G3. Namely, in G3 you want that the one-line description does not specify the output clearly, and in G4 you want that a more-than-one-line description of the output is missing as well. And that would be desastrous. On 2017-05-17, Kwankyu Lee

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On 2017-05-19 00:17, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > I prepared H1 revised from G1 based on your ideas and wishes. It was > hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a > proposal for the better. So this time_if I fail to get approval from > most of you, the guideline will be simply

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H1 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On 2017-05-19 08:35, Simon King wrote: > PS, to the +1 given earlier: I suggest that one should also write `f(x)` > instead of f(x). +1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H2 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On 2017-05-19 00:20, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared H2 revised from G2 based on your ideas and wishes. It was > hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a > proposal for the better. So this time_ if I fail to get approval from > most of you, the guideline will be

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H3 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On 2017-05-19 00:22, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > I prepared H3 revised from G3 based on your ideas and wishes. It was > hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a > proposal for the better. So this time_ if I fail to get approval from > most of you, the guideline will be simply

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H4 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On 2017-05-19 00:24, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > I prepared H4 revised from G4 based on your ideas and wishes. It was > hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a > proposal for the better. So this time_ if I fail to get approval from > most of you, the guideline will be simply

Re: [sage-devel] Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On 2017-05-19 08:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > As I mentioned on the other thread, since OUTPUT is not a list of things > (as opposed to INPUT), I would prefer > > OUTPUT: tuple of lattices +1 for this option -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Secondl round poll for H6 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Simon King wrote: > Almost +1 > > Actually I thought this guideline has already been used, with > a minute difference: >- ``n`` -- integer (default 1), the number of repetitions > > (so, "default" instead of "default:" and ")," instead

[sage-devel] Re: python3 : help needed

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:27:54 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:46:15 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:51:46 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We have almost reached the state of vanilla

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Second round poll for H5 a specific guideline for writing docstrings

On Fri, 19 May 2017, Sébastien Labbé wrote: My suggestion would be OUTPUT: - If ``certificate=True`` return only True or False. - If ``certificate=False`` return either    * (True, XX), where XX is...    * (False, XX), where XX is...   I think this is too