On 1 December 2010 13:37, pang <pablo.ang...@uam.es> wrote: > On 1 dic, 13:59, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >> Why should I waste my time checking the validity of code that the >> author can't be bothered to check actually works? >> >> I feel it's the responsibility of the author to check the code works, >> not the reviewer. >> >> If you submitted a proof to a maths journal, but wrote: >> >> "I can't be bothered to check my proof, but I'll address any errors >> found by the reviewers" >> >> then I don't think the journal editor would even bother submitting the >> paper to reviewers. It would be rejected immediately. >> >> Dave > > It's not the validity that you check. Many times the code works, but > it can be done in different ways, more elegantly, faster, better > integrated into Sage...
Sure worth discussing. > Maybe just the name the author chose for the function is not the best. > Maybe the way he uses the function is a little bit inconsistent with > other similar tools. Stuff like this gets discussed on this list all > the time: should I change the name of these functions? should this be > a function or a method? As you say, it gets done on the list. That could be raised on a ticket too, though perhaps the list is a better place. I'd have no objecting to getting in a discussion about that. > You analogy does not work for me: if you publish in the same journal > that I do, but use an notation inconsistent with mine, it doesn't > affect me in any way. What has notation got to do with my analogy.? It's the correctness that matters. There are of course limits on the notation. If I wrote Dave -- 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
