On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 08:46:05AM -0700, Ralf Stephan wrote:
> Actually you can ref from the thematic tutorial back to the
> reference manual, and there already are many (not enough!!!)
> such links:
>
>Really. Is that ticket obsolete then:
>http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 3:18:53 PM UTC+2, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote:
>
> Actually you can ref from the thematic tutorial back to the reference
> manual, and there already are many (not enough!!!) such links:
>
Really. Is that ticket obsolete then:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14091
--
Y
Am 2015-04-04 um 15:18 schrieb Nicolas M. Thiery:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 06:24:42AM -0700, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>>I think it would already be better if there wasn't this bug
>>preventing authors from linking between document trees.That's
>>presumably why the three random tutorials I p
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 06:24:42AM -0700, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>I think it would already be better if there wasn't this bug
>preventing authors from linking between document trees.That's
>presumably why the three random tutorials I picked (calculus,
>p-adics, combinatorics) had not a
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 12:54:00 PM UTC+2, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> What do you think about this topic? How can we make our documentation
> linked better together?
>
I think it would already be better if there wasn't this bug preventing
authors
from linking between document trees.That's pres
Am 2015-04-03 um 14:24 schrieb Nathann Cohen:
>> The intention of #18120 is to remove this "optional", but not making it
>> explicitly manadatory. "highly recommended" sounds like a good phrase.
>
> Then could you make it explicitly '(highly) recommended'? As you see
> the mandatory fields have no
> The intention of #18120 is to remove this "optional", but not making it
> explicitly manadatory. "highly recommended" sounds like a good phrase.
Then could you make it explicitly '(highly) recommended'? As you see
the mandatory fields have no specific flags, so there would otherwise
be no differ
Am 2015-04-03 um 14:10 schrieb Simon King:
>> Being mandatory seems to me to be going too far,
>
> I think Nathann did not suggest to make it explicitly mandatory, but
> only to remove the explicit labelling as being "optional". So, it is
> implied that one should use SEEALSO, but it is not strict
Hello,
> I think Nathann did not suggest to make it explicitly mandatory, but
> only to remove the explicit labelling as being "optional". So, it is
> implied that one should use SEEALSO, but it is not strictly required.
>
> Marking it as "highly recommended", however, seems fine to me.
+1. We co
Hi John,
On 2015-04-03, John Cremona wrote:
>> To be more accurate, the ticket at 18120 removes the 'optional' mention next
>> to the 'SEEALSO' section, thus implying that it is mandatory for all
>> functions to have a 'SEEALSO' section.
>
> Being mandatory seems to me to be going too far,
I thi
On 3 April 2015 at 12:36, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> states an optional SEEALSO block for links to other functions, methods,
>> modules, etc. On step in more links could be to encourage people to use
>> this block more frequently (see http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18120).
>>
>> What do you think ab
>
> states an optional SEEALSO block for links to other functions, methods,
> modules, etc. On step in more links could be to encourage people to use
> this block more frequently (see http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18120).
>
> What do you think about this topic? How can we make our documentati
12 matches
Mail list logo
