Hi Miguel,
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:05:56AM -0700, mmarco wrote:
> Sorry if I sounded rude or disrispectful, It wasn't my intention at
> all.
No worry, I know :-)
> Let me try to redeem myself by proposing some constructive proposal:
Thanks!
> what about a function/method level mark (be it a decorator or a
> comment)?
The current implementation in #20427 applies only to the current
method (in fact only to the doctests after the markup). Up to syntax,
is this what you have in mind? Any suggestion of better syntax?
> It could have more benefits than just treating correctly the
> doctests. It could also help, for instance, creating a
> documentation section automatically, or even not exposing the
> function at all if the corresponding package is not installed.
Yes! Practice would tell us which of those features we would want to
implement.
> Of course, this idea has many drawbacks: the optional functionality
> might deppend only on certain parameters (e.g. the 'algorithm'
> keyword)... but maybe they could be worked out.
Indeed; anyway when a finer granularity is required, the usual #
optional works just fine.
Cheers,
Nicolas
[1] http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20427
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
