> > A small remark: in combinatorial designs and graphs the anser to "How > do I build ***" is rather well answered by graphs.<tab>, > digraphs.<tab>, designs.<tab>. It gives a nice entry point for the > functions that "build something", and from there the classes/functions > doc is sufficient in our case. > > Of course I have no idea how that applies for other fields. But I > would not be surprised if we could simply remove the groups/codes > entries of the construction manual, after checking that all that it > says can already be found through the groups.<tab> and codes.<tab> > objects. > > Well, in that event one could (seriously!) just have a short section that gives absolute basics and says "graphs.tab" explains the rest. Though I don't think that's really true; graphs.tab just gives you specific graphs, but to build your own custom graph from a dictionary one has to look for the graph constructor methods etc. Plus one has to *know* to do graphs.tab, which is perhaps nontrivial for someone who hasn't used software to do graphs before... but I agree that such a section wouldn't have to be long.
-- 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.
