2008/6/23 Stéfan van der Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/6/24 Stéfan van der Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> It should be fairly easy to execute the example code, just to make >> sure it runs. We can always work out a scheme to test its validity >> later. > > Mike Hansen just explained to me that the Sage doctest system sets the > random seed before executing each test. If we address > > a) Random variables > b) Plotting representations and > c) Endianness > > we're probably halfway there.
I agree (though I have reservations about how they are to be addressed). But in the current setting, "halfway there" is still a problem - it seems to me we need, now and later, a way to deal with generic examples that are not doctests. There may not be many of them, and most may be dealt with by falling into categories a, b, and c above, but it is important that we not make it difficult to write new examples even if they can't readily be made into doctests. In particular, we don't want some documentor saying "well, I'd like to write an example, but I don't remember the arcane syntax to prevent this failing a doctest, so I'm not going to bother." Anne _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
