Re: [sage-devel] Sage policy question: require docstrings and doctests?

2017-05-09 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
On Tue, 9 May 2017, John H Palmieri wrote: Sage's developer's guide says: "Every function must have a docstring" which must include "An EXAMPLES block for examples. This is not optional." Could we have that as a formal requirement, but allow something like EXAMPLES:: sage: pass #

[sage-devel] Unifying "test::" and "tests::"

2017-05-09 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
At https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22963 I suggest translating every TEST:: to TESTS::, and was asked to open a discussion here. I think that things like this make automatic processing slightly easier, think for example about the code stripping tests-blocks in function? -help. Also I hope

Re: [sage-devel] broken: http://old.files.sagemath.org/src-old/

2017-05-09 Thread William Stein
Hi, I *have* a USB drive with all these files still. It's 36GB of tarballs, from sage-v0.3-2005-04-21-src.tar to sage-6.5.tar.gz I've posted them here so you can grab the one you want: https://k8s.sagemath.org/187e8e97-d814-44c7-a8a5-ca9da39e5234/raw/src-old/index.html Any new thoughts about

[sage-devel] Sage policy question: require docstrings and doctests?

2017-05-09 Thread John H Palmieri
Sage's developer's guide says: "Every function must have a docstring" which must include "An EXAMPLES block for examples. This is not optional." What is meant by "function"? Here is an example, taken from ticket #21399: import sys if sys.platform == X: def auxiliary_function(...):

Re: [sage-devel] broken: http://old.files.sagemath.org/src-old/

2017-05-09 Thread kcrisman
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:36:55 AM UTC-4, William wrote: > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Pedro Cruz > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm looking for version 5.2 and the above link is broken in master > > www.sagemath.org pages. > > > > Some emails, in this forum,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should RLF/CLF be exact ?

2017-05-09 Thread Daniel Krenn
On 2017-05-09 10:30, Marc Mezzarobba wrote: > Hi, > > Thierry wrote: >> I opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22960 but i am not sure >> whether RLF should stop claiming it is exact or whether we should >> forbid things like RLF(0.1), what do you think (the first is easier to >> implement) ?

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should RLF/CLF be exact ?

2017-05-09 Thread Thierry
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 10:30:26AM +0200, Marc Mezzarobba wrote: > Hi, > > Thierry wrote: > > I opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22960 but i am not sure > > whether RLF should stop claiming it is exact or whether we should > > forbid things like RLF(0.1), what do you think (the first is

[sage-devel] Re: Should RLF/CLF be exact ?

2017-05-09 Thread Marc Mezzarobba
Hi, Thierry wrote: > I opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22960 but i am not sure > whether RLF should stop claiming it is exact or whether we should > forbid things like RLF(0.1), what do you think (the first is easier to > implement) ? The latter option sounds better to me. A third way