On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:38 AM, William Stein wrote:
> > 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. I'm fine with that--it's totally explicit. I was more thinking along the lines that if I run "sage -t long" I shouldn't have to run "sage - t" as well. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
