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 #
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
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'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(...):
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,
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) ?
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
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