On 1 dic, 13:59, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > Why should I waste my time checking the validity of code that the > author can't be bothered to check actually works? > > I feel it's the responsibility of the author to check the code works, > not the reviewer. > > If you submitted a proof to a maths journal, but wrote: > > "I can't be bothered to check my proof, but I'll address any errors > found by the reviewers" > > then I don't think the journal editor would even bother submitting the > paper to reviewers. It would be rejected immediately. > > Dave
It's not the validity that you check. Many times the code works, but it can be done in different ways, more elegantly, faster, better integrated into Sage... Maybe just the name the author chose for the function is not the best. Maybe the way he uses the function is a little bit inconsistent with other similar tools. Stuff like this gets discussed on this list all the time: should I change the name of these functions? should this be a function or a method? You analogy does not work for me: if you publish in the same journal that I do, but use an notation inconsistent with mine, it doesn't affect me in any way. -- 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
