On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:28:58PM +0200, Paul-Olivier Dehaye wrote:
> """
> E.g. when a
> borderline feature is meaningful in the context of Sage, is useful
> for a sister project, but does not yet have a direct use case
> within Sage ...
> """
> Correct me if I am wrong, off the top of my head:
> Assuming "the findstat people" start adding information about which maps
> are bijective, can't one automatically create new tests, testing two
> methods at once?
> Assuming "the findstat people" start adding information about the ranges
> of maps, can't one automatically create new tests, testing that the output
> of a method is what it should be? (e.g. no [5,4,2] that is supposed to be
> a Partition but is in fact a list).
I guess we could. I am not sure to see your point though. Is it that a
potential direct use case within Sage would be to exploit this
semantic information to do more automatic testing which in turn would
contribute to make Sage more robust?
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
