On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Florent,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Florent Hivert
<florent.hiv...@univ-rouen.fr> wrote:
<SNIP>
I like this way of seeing. However, I was speaking about module or
functions
which are not tested nor deprecated and nowhere used into sage
(easy to check
using grep). Does it make sens to remove them without a deprecation
warning ?
Many code seems to had been put here, just in case it is useful,
and was never
used by the sage lib itself, but maybe by some users...
Do we agree on the policy:
- If a user need a code, he should take care to document and test it.
- Corollary: any code which is not tested, nor used can be safely
removed
without a deprecation warning.
There are functions, classes, methods that were introduced into the
Sage library well before the policy of 100% doctest coverage was
implemented and os completely lack testing. It can be difficult to
know if a piece of orphaned code should be removed. I think we need to
consider your proposed policy on a module by module basis.
+1. Much of that code has been around for years, and so is the least
safe to deprecate without warning. Of course, there's a lot of dead
code that could be pruned/cleaned, but lets put at least some
deprecation warnings in sooner rather than later.
Perhaps, if your thinking about coverage, it would be fair to not
count deprecated code in that number.
- Robert
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
