On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 2:01:17 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> I don't really care about whether to display TESTS:: or not, but we really
> should have a proper parser for our docstring style. This ticket adds yet
> another regex hack. E.g. sphinxcontrib-napoleon is an example for
[X] 'foo?' should NOT display TESTS blocks.
[ ] 'foo?' should display TESTS block.
--
Marc
--
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
I don't really care about whether to display TESTS:: or not, but we really
should have a proper parser for our docstring style. This ticket adds yet
another regex hack. E.g. sphinxcontrib-napoleon is an example for how it is
done correctly:
* Nicer typeset output since the docbuilder has
>
> [X] 'foo?' should display TESTS block.
>
>
I think Thierry's argument about corner cases is a good one. Plus some
docstrings have different input formats in the TESTS block or only have
tests in the TESTS blocks (granted, this is only likely to occur in hidden
functions, but I believe it
A corollary to this is that relevant documentation should not exist in
the TESTS block. And those edge cases should be documented. If the
user wants to know more, foo?? will give them the Only True
Documentation, which happens to include the TESTS block.
[x] 'foo?' should NOT display TESTS
