On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:52 AM, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A large amount of common help/support questions could have the answers >> automated and built in. This would be 100% optional, triggered only >> on interactive errors, and not change Sage's library in any way >> (except possibly with the addition of this). >> > > This is all an intriguing idea, and one I'm surprised hasn't come up earlier
The problem that I'm suggesting addressing comes up constantly whenever I talk to end users. They just don't describe the problem as such. New users very, very often (always) tell me basically that "the error messages in Sage suck". When they say this they actually mean that the error messages do not actually provide useful information *to them* about how to address their problems. This is, of course, because they aren't elite experts in Python and the Sage library/preparser, so they don't know how to interpret the error messages properly. > (though I am sure there are counter-arguments as well, My proposal is so vague and ill defined it would be hard to argue against it. Once something exists, it could get ripped to shreds though. > and someone has to > write it of course). Fortunately, it can start very simply with this en-dash issue... -- William (http://wstein.org) -- 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.
