On 30 April 2015 at 05:29, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 April 2015 10:09:55 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 23:17:19 UTC+1, Bill Page wrote:
>>>
>>> > PPS. if you really are pressed for time, I can submit this patch
>>> > instead...
>>> >
>>>
>>> Thanks I would really appreciate that.
>>
>> a proper patch would include a doctest for the issue, you know, that's why
>> sage-trac is not too a hammer :-)
>> Did you check that your patch doesn't break things like SMC's
>> show(axiom('...')) ?
>>No I did not check. I still think that sage-trac is a very heavy and complex solution to a simple problem. <rant> This is just a personal opinion but contrary to common intuition I do not see any real evidence that the Sage developer emphasis on "doc tests" has resulted in any fewer errors or problems in Sage in comparison to other systems. I am not sure why this is, but my personal experience is that Sage is just as hard to use and just as likely to return an obscure error message as any of the other open source computer algebra systems that I have used. My prior experience with commercial systems is not that much better, Anyway, in spite of being very happy to use Sage and to try to fix problems I encounter if/when I have sufficient time, I am very reluctant to invest the extra amount of time to learn and over come my distaste for the Sage development model in general. </rant> -- 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.
