On May 3, 2:24 am, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > 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.
Zap! Yes! Just like the fabled "making a patch on the web" idea. Though I suspect you could only easily do the above for things with no docstring... -- 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
