In particular, we cannot consider each function with such a bug to be 'just an instance of a more general problem'. They have to be fixed one by one, especially when the function involved is perhaps the most common constructor function new users will call.
There was some talk here of making Sage more user-friendly for new math students: if that really is an important goal for people here, we can't have matrix ignore its input without even a warning. Nathann On 5 February 2016 at 17:08, Nathann Cohen <nathann.co...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes, this is a more universal problem in the UI: > > I object. It is a *very* simple mistake that has a *very* simple solution: > > Any function that takes **kwargs as argument must: > 1) Remove from kwargs all values it understands > 2) Forward the remaining content of kwargs to a subfunction > > There is no way on earth that stuff will get lost if you use this very > simple logic. Any additional keyword will raise an exception > eventually. > >> It would be nice if we can find an easy to use, low (zero?) overhead way of >> getting better checking on unknown keywords. I don't have a solution (python >> definitely seems to invite the lax way we're doing it) > > I propose the pattern above, which was used successfully to make the > graph plot routines somewhat trustworthy (at least from this point of > view). > > Nathann -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
