Hi,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:48:15AM -0700, Ralf Stephan wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:03:27 AM UTC+2, John H Palmieri wrote:
> >
> > - all references should be, insofar as possible, in a standard form
> >
>
> There is one standard form for everything, even old papers, the Goog
>>> As discussed in another thread [1]_ on sage-devel recently, I propose
>>> changing our policy toward references:
>>>
>>> - all references should be put into a master bibliography file
>>>
>>
>> There is one significant drawback to this: it will mean that a lot of
>> ticket branches will be mo
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:39:28 AM UTC-7, Salvatore Stella
wrote:
>
> * Thierry > [2016-09-21
> 18:35:25]:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >bikeshedding for bikeshedding:
> >
> >- if we decide to centralize everything in a single file (but we should
> be
> > aware that a backward move (e.g.
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 11:35:30 AM UTC-5, Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> bikeshedding for bikeshedding:
>
> - if we decide to centralize everything in a single file (but we should be
> aware that a backward move (e.g. for modularization) will require some
>
* Thierry [2016-09-21 18:35:25]:
Hi,
bikeshedding for bikeshedding:
- if we decide to centralize everything in a single file (but we should be
aware that a backward move (e.g. for modularization) will require some
work), why not using bibtex (there must be some sphinx interface
somewhere),
Hi,
bikeshedding for bikeshedding:
- if we decide to centralize everything in a single file (but we should be
aware that a backward move (e.g. for modularization) will require some
work), why not using bibtex (there must be some sphinx interface
somewhere), to that we keep all information w
There may be two issues here.
- How should references be written in source code?
- How should references appear in documentation output?
The default behavior in Sphinx is to use the source code citation name also
in the output. I don't know how hard it would be to change that.
We can have discu
>From working on stuff that involves 100+ references, even having [1] causes
problems. Then you also have essentially random numbers that can change on
every new version of Sage. Also, I feel doing stuff like "Foo in [1]" can
be overly verbose to redundant at times. So I am strongly for referenc
Am Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 13:49:57 UTC+2 schrieb Johan S. R. Nielsen:
>
> With MR numbers, do you mean a link of the type [MR3352496]?
>
Yes! (Except, that in a compiled document such links could be transformed
into a link such as [1].
> > well, for preprints clearly there is of cours
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 11:52:57 AM UTC, Martin R wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 13:36:31 UTC+2 schrieb Dima Pasechnik:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:36:06 AM UTC, Martin R wrote:
>>>
>>> well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number a
Am Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 13:36:31 UTC+2 schrieb Dima Pasechnik:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:36:06 AM UTC, Martin R wrote:
>>
>> well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for
>> sciences without a good database, there is doi.
>>
>> concerning reada
> Having said this, I again would argue for an option to have aliases.
>
> E.g. say there is a popular Arxiv preprint cited 10 times in the source,
> which then becomes
> a publication. It is really unnecessary to change all these 10 citations?
That's a good point. But does Sphinx support such al
With MR numbers, do you mean a link of the type [MR3352496]?
> well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for
> sciences without a good database, there is doi.
Neither arXiv nor DOI completely catalogues all publications. I don't
know how many such cases appear in Sage's
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:36:06 AM UTC, Martin R wrote:
>
> well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for
> sciences without a good database, there is doi.
>
> concerning readability, there is a well known justification for using
> sequential numbers
>
we
well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for
sciences without a good database, there is doi.
concerning readability, there is a well known justification for using
sequential numbers
I'm not making this up, I used this to organise the references for
www.findstat.org,
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 8:46:13 AM UTC, David Roe wrote:
>
> Preprints won't have MR numbers. I also find MR numbers less readable.
>
and not all the CS-related publications make it into MR database, either.
>
> We could just append letters ("a" then "b," etc) if there are collisi
Preprints won't have MR numbers. I also find MR numbers less readable.
We could just append letters ("a" then "b," etc) if there are collisions.
David
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:38 AM, 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Why not use the MR number as reference format
17 matches
Mail list logo