On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:57:30PM -0700, Rob Beezer wrote:
> I have given this a lot of thought the past few years (perhaps this is
> obvious). I prepared extensive material about Sage for Tom Judson's
> Abstract Algebra book and have an automated procedure to produce doctests
> of the code examples. While I use sagetex for some aspects of this, the
> philosophy is the reverse. I provide expected output in the source,
> rather than just blindly letting Sage produce the output. In a few places
> I illustrate bugs, in hope of catching their corrections later.
For the record: for the French sage book we are following the same
strategy, using sagetex. We put the expected results in the file. and
sagetex extracts a file on which we can run the tests (and that we can
submit for inclusion into Sage). Depending on the situation the
examples are setup so that what's get typeset is either the latex
output produced by sage, the text output produced by sage, or the
expected output that is specified in the file.
It's not perfect (especially for speed of compilation). Also in the
process we patched quite some sagetex and it would be great if those
patches made their way into standard sagetex (hint hint).
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
