On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-7, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 5/8/20 12:11 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> >
> > They accomplish different things: one searches the global name space and
> > the other searches the source code.
> >
> > Example: can Sage compute any fundamental groups?
> >
>
> Neither approach returns the best result. Putting
>
> site:doc.sagemath.org fundamental group
>
> into a search engine gives you what you're looking for:
>
>
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/combinat/sage/combinat/root_system/fundamental_group.html
>
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdoc.sagemath.org%2Fhtml%2Fen%2Freference%2Fcombinat%2Fsage%2Fcombinat%2Froot_system%2Ffundamental_group.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFQ8w83Kwpu0AdbWk7NP7Rpzy3IuQ>
As a topologist, I would have to say that the best results are the ones for
simplicial complexes and simplicial sets, actually.
More seriously, I think that search_def should include "class" as well as
"[c]?def" as parts of the regular expression forming the search. That still
doesn't find the case you mentioned, because it uses "FundamentalGroup"
instead of "fundamental_group". Including "class" in the definition of
search_def and then calling search_def("fundamental", "group") should work.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0f11e8e6-c3d4-43b0-af36-e171ba045358%40googlegroups.com.
