On Jan 3, 9:34 am, "John Cremona" <john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi John,
> A different but related point: where is it decided which source files
> are converted into documentation and which are not? For example, in
> the hyperelliptic curves section there are several files with almost
> nothing in them; while in the elliptic curves section there's nothing
> from files ell_point.py and weierstrass_morphism.py (and maybe
> others).
>
> John
In the old documentation this was controlled via devel/doc/ref/files,
I am not sure how this is controlled in the new documentation. One
aspect of this review is certainly to get more of the files in Sage
into the documentation, i.e. so far neither the Species code nor the
SageWords library is in 3.2.3's ref manual. But they are in 3.3, so if
you see some files with nice docstrings that is not in the ref manual
please open a ticket to get them in. I think some files that are
affected by this is the potting documentation after the refactoring,
but I will see how that is worked out with the new patches.
Just like the 100% coverage we should make it mandatory that new files
in the Sage library are added to the documentation since they should
have 100% coverage :)
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
