On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 29 April 2012 20:58, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > >> sage: foobar? >> it would be doable that one reads: >> Type: function >> Base Class: <type 'function'> >> String Form: <function foobar at 0x4eb9f50> >> Namespace: Interactive >> Loaded File: ... >> Source File: ... >> Definition: foobar(x, y) >> Docstring: >> Please contribute to Sage by writing a doctest >> for this function! >> >> This function does useful stuff. >> >> Here, there is no regression (reading documentation is not >> time-critical), and it is clearly doable. > >> What do people think? Would that kind of message encourage people to do >> their first contribution, or would that scare people off? > > I think it might get people to contribute. It needs a link to a page > describing in detail the process of writing a doctest for Sage, and > how to get that doctest into Sage. > > Perhaps it woud scare a few people off, but overall I would have > thought the result positive.
+1, I think that's a great idea. What may also help is making it trivial to create doctests, e.g. sage: add_doctest(some_method, "Description.") sage: some_method(4) 2 sage: some_method(5) 5 sage: some_method(32) 5 sage: some_method(3) 7 sage: finish_doctest() Please upload /tmp/doctest-some_method.patch to trac. - 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
