> Regarding speed, there are two issues:
>
> 1. Building the documentation from scratch. I don't know if we can expect
> this to go any faster. The PDF version of the documentation is 3,474 pages
> long. No, wait, that's just the contribution from references/combinat: the
> whole reference manu
> In any large document, such as the sage manuals, there are bound to be
> uniqueness issues with the choice of labels for references. The best way to
> resolve this is for us to start using a specified format for the
> references. Currently we do not even have guidelines for this so it is not
In any large document, such as the sage manuals, there are bound to be
uniqueness issues with the choice of labels for references. The best way to
resolve this is for us to start using a specified format for the
references. Currently we do not even have guidelines for this so it is not
surprisi
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 11:20:15 AM UTC-7, Johan S. R. Nielsen
wrote:
>
> leif writes:
> >> ... [HP] W. C. Huffman, V. Pless, Fundamentals of Error-Correcting
> >>Codes, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
> >
> > Well, first of all it is stupid to use such a short abbreviation, even
>
leif writes:
>> ... [HP] W. C. Huffman, V. Pless, Fundamentals of Error-Correcting
>>Codes, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
>
> Well, first of all it is stupid to use such a short abbreviation, even
> without a year. Presumably it was introduced when references were
> local, so we may create a (m
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde
wrote:
> I should perhaps clarify my main question:
>
> Isn't the unique citation as used in Sphinx a Bad Idea for Sage?
>
> Most source files in Sage are not ordered, and if we refer to document
> [X] in two different source files, we current
General comment to all people complaining about Sphinx: reviewing
existing Sphinx-related tickets such as #20577 will show that you
actually care and will encourage other Sage developers to continue
working on Sphinx.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 2016-09-05 16:40, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> [...] However, I agree, the docbuilding is fairly fragile
> (especially when files have been deleted due to, e.g., changing branches).
This annoys me as well.
Can we do something against these troubles coming from deleted files?
Best,
Daniel
--
Yo
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde
wrote:
> Dima Pasechnik writes:
>> only a small minority of Sage users actually use terminal.
>
> How do you know that? Seriously, I'd like to know how our users
> distributed across interfaces. It's my impression that quite a lot of
> casual
Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
> I just ran into a doc issue that has been bothering me for years: global
> uniqueness of reference labels in Sphinx. For instance, in
> sage.coding.code_construction, we have:
>
>
> ... [HP] W. C. Huffman, V. Pless, Fundamentals of Error-Correcting
>Codes, Camb
Dima Pasechnik writes:
> only a small minority of Sage users actually use terminal.
How do you know that? Seriously, I'd like to know how our users
distributed across interfaces. It's my impression that quite a lot of
casual users of Sage begin with terminal use and never leave it.
> And in any e
> I should perhaps clarify my main question:
>
> Isn't the unique citation as used in Sphinx a Bad Idea for Sage?
>
I don't think so. How else could you resolve a reference in a separate
file? It would likely lead to a lot of duplication of reference information
because of this.
Most source
> I'd just like to say thanks for creating Sage, it's a wonderful bit of
> software that has been very useful to me.
>
Welcome Peter.
>
> I am an undergrad maths student, and over the past 8 weeks I have been
> working on a summer project developing code related to Sage. Along with my
> sup
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 11:56:35 AM UTC, Johan S. R. Nielsen wrote:
>
> I should perhaps clarify my main question:
>
> Isn't the unique citation as used in Sphinx a Bad Idea for Sage?
>
> Most source files in Sage are not ordered, and if we refer to document
> [X] in two different sour
I should perhaps clarify my main question:
Isn't the unique citation as used in Sphinx a Bad Idea for Sage?
Most source files in Sage are not ordered, and if we refer to document
[X] in two different source files, we currently have three options:
1) Arbitrarily define [X] in one file and refer t
I've opened #21418 to deal with refs mess in coding/
Should be ready for review soon (there are duplicate references, missed _
in []_, wrong tabulation in docstrings, etc
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:59:36 AM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:46:22 AM UTC,
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde
wrote:
> I just ran into a doc issue that has been bothering me for years: global
> uniqueness of reference labels in Sphinx. For instance, in
> sage.coding.code_construction, we have:
>
>
> .. [HP] W. C. Huffman, V. Pless, Fundamentals of Er
Hi everyone,
I'd just like to say thanks for creating Sage, it's a wonderful bit of
software that has been very useful to me.
I am an undergrad maths student, and over the past 8 weeks I have been
working on a summer project developing code related to Sage. Along with my
supervisor, we have be
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:46:22 AM UTC, Johan S. R. Nielsen wrote:
>
> I just ran into a doc issue that has been bothering me for years: global
> uniqueness of reference labels in Sphinx. For instance, in
> sage.coding.code_construction, we have:
>
>
> .. [HP] W. C. Huffman, V. Pless,
I just ran into a doc issue that has been bothering me for years: global
uniqueness of reference labels in Sphinx. For instance, in
sage.coding.code_construction, we have:
.. [HP] W. C. Huffman, V. Pless, Fundamentals of Error-Correcting
Codes, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
This means I cannot
20 matches
Mail list logo
