I don't think it should be easy to suppress sage -coverage warnings. Rather, if a file has lots of errors in it, it should be well documented as to why.
- Robert On Mar 1, 2008, at 6:02 PM, Joel B. Mohler wrote: > On Saturday 01 March 2008 04:51:37 pm Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> I agree that there are cases (such as the ones listed here) that >> doctests are less than useful. Rather than modify sage -coverage, I >> think the documentation should clearly justify why coverage is so >> bad. > > Well, I wasn't really saying that we should modify sage -coverage, > but we > certainly do want to make sure there is a logical way for every > test that > sage -coverage runs to be circumnavigated and not get errors for > it. I > guess, in general, the idea could be to make a doc-test and then > comment it > out. Since 'sage -coverage' only does checks in strings, then the > commented > out doc-test will satisfy coverage. Is there a problem with that > sort of > simplistic viewpoint? It feels a little too simplistic in some > sense to me. > > -- > Joel > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
