I'm not sure that it would have to be complete as Mathematica's. I see Mathematica as being more of a computational encyclopedia with a given function having one or more of history, values of interest, syntax, graphs, etc... In SymPy I would expect much less would be needed to show how to use the function after a brief description of what is calculated. Having a reference to a more complete definition would be possible, possibly to Fungrim, wikipedia or Mathamatica.
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:06:23 AM UTC-5, David Bailey wrote: > > On 03/10/2019 19:40, Aaron Meurer wrote: > > Thank you for your excellent work on this Lauren. > > The feedback from the community on this is very important, so please > take a moment to read it over, and let us know if there are any parts > that are confusing, or parts that you have questions or concerns > about. Once this is merged into our documentation, this will be the > official style guide that all docstrings in SymPy will be expected to > follow, so it's important to have community consensus on this. I > encourage feedback on this both from people who are active > contributors and from people who contribute less often or who haven't > contributed at all yet. > > > I am not clear if there are actual samples of new documentation available > - as opposed to documents about style. > > I guess that the real problem is that SymPy would deserve documentation > equal in size to some of those Mathematica tomes (produced while it still > fitted in one book) which would require a massive effort. > > David > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/4719ab02-ff10-4f24-8b1a-ccb1bfbad126%40googlegroups.com.
