Michel wrote: > Dear Simon, > > I am a fairly experienced python/sage user so I know what you wrote. > > My point is that what that apparently "solve" is documented in > two ways > > (1) as reply to "solve?" > (2) as a section in the reference manual > > In this case the information obtained by method (2) is more concise > and useful but takes > more work to obtain. > > I am fan of sage but I think Maple does it better in this case. >
Also, another way to find commands: use wildcards sage: *solve*? desolve desolve_laplace desolve_system desolvers ode_solver solve solve_mod I agree that the Sage help system still has a way to go to be as comprehensive and inter-connected as mathematica or maple. The help is steadily improving, though. I imagine that once we have an online documentation contribution system like numpy, the contributions from those that maybe aren't comfortable editing source code will go way up. See http://docs.scipy.org/numpy/Front%20Page/ This system lets people log in and edit the docstrings online. The patches are then automatically posted for review and then incorporated into Sage. This seems to work well for the numpy guys, and I believe there is at least one Google summer of code project enhancing the system. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
