On Jan 16, 8:51 pm, "David Roe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, it'd be nice if every function had ample documentation,
> > but I'd rather have 100% coverage on all user-accessible functions in
> > two files, than 100% coverage in one file for def/cpdef and cdef
> > functions. Also, often the "inderect" tests for cdef functions seem
> > to be redundant with the doctests exposed functions.
>
> The indirect doctests are sometimes reduntant. But sometimes they are
> things like _add_c_impl, which won't necessarily get doctested elsewhere.
> David
I think it can't hurt to test those. When I need to debug some odd
crash on an experimental platforms with very abstract, high level code
it would greatly help to narrow down the issue if those functions
would also be doctested and exposed when I run -testall on the build.
While it certainly is a lot of effort it would still be worth it. The
only negative impact I would see is that our percentage of -
coverageall would probably do drop quite a bit.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
