On Dec 19, 2009, at 10:59 AM, David Roe wrote: > Currently we don't require documentation for __cinit__, __dealloc__ > and __new__. Are there any other functions we want to add to that > list? I could see an argument for _add_ and other arithmetic > functions too.
A TESTS block is certainly a good thing to have for the arithmetic operators. > David > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, David Roe <r...@math.harvard.edu> > wrote: > > > I think that requiring them for every single function is excessive, > > for example many functions don't take any parameters but self, or > > don't return output. > > OK, good point. How about requiring INPUT if there are any inputs > beyond self, and requiring OUTPUT if there are any outputs? > > This is what the patch at 7716 currently does (which I've updated to > reflect some comments; it still needs a reviewer). Based on > Robert's comments, I would also suggest changing the coverage > scripts to not require input or output descriptions for functions > that begin and end with underscores. I'll post a patch on 7716 to > that effect shortly. > > > Also, what about arithmetic functions like > > __neg__ and _mul_. (Specifically, I yesterday I was adding a bunch > of > > doctests to monsky-washnitzer, and the thought of adding (in my mind > > superfluous) INPUT and OUTPUT blocks to these was not encouraging. > > (I'm not just thinking about file size, developer time and vertical > > screen real estate are valuable as well.) > > Robert, are there any other kinds of functions that you can think of > where we don't need descriptions of the input/output? Not that I can think of at the moment. - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
