On 02/18/12 06:54 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
The main problem is that none of the people playing with it (including
me !) have the necessary expertise to check if everything is correct. As
anyone can see from the code, I wrote my patch using log backtrace and
{{{pdb}}}. At several point, I'm using call to sphinx or docutils internals
which are not really documented. So this is some kind of reverse engineering
working around seemingly bugs. I tried several time to ask for some help on
sphinx-user mailing list and never got any answer on that. At the end I'm not
following this list anymore. My diagnostic is that Sphinx doesn't expose a
sufficiently flexible API to achieve what we want.
<snip>
In the mean time, my opinion is that the feature is important enough to let it
enter Sage in its current state, maybe with some minor correction. I would
like to know if this opinion is widely shared among Sage users.
Cheers,
Florent
It does seem a good idea to me to put code which you freely admit is using
undocumented features which you don't really understand well.
I'm basing that on a general principle, rather than gathered through a deep
knowledge of what you are doing.
I think you other idea of trying to get some experts involved would be more
useful. It's a shame the Sphinix list is not more helpful. Some lists are very
good (sage, mpir, autoconf), some are medicore and some like R, are pretty
offensive some times.
--
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
