On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Jul 24, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Simon King wrote: > >> >> I think it would be nice to have the possibility to do the following >> in doc tests: >> >> """ >> EXAMPLES:: >> >> sage: R.<x,y,z> = QQ[] >> #<if testflag contains "long"> >> sage: I = ... # some nasty ideal >> sage: G = I.groebner_basis() >> #<if (testflag contains "magma") or (testflag contains "optional") >>> >> sage: GM = I.groebner_basis(algorithm="magma") >> sage: G == GM >> True >> #<end if> >> #<else> >> sage: I = ... # some less nasty ideal >> sage: G = I.groebner_basis() >> #<end if> >> sage: p = ... # some ideal that both belongs to the nasty and the >> less nasty ideal >> sage: p.reduce(G) >> 0 >> >> """ > > Doctests are for human consumption, as well as automated testing, and > I find the above nested if statements hard to visually parse. > > If one wants, one can do > > sage: m = None > sage: m = massive_calculation() # long time > sage: if m: > ...: m.do_something() > > Also, I think -t -long should be a superset of plain old -t, as > should all extra testing options. >
This isn't quite the case. E.g., note that if you do sage -t -optional_only=magma <list of files> then only blocks of code that have any # magma 's are tested. --William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
