On Sep 15, 9:01 am, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
...
> One way of establishing this feature is by having "custom docstrings"
> on objects.
Another way is to establish a storage structure, e.g. hashtable,
indexed file, etc
to store all the documentation strings with the object names as keys.
Essentiall
On Sep 15, 6:02 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
> Would it be possible to formalise
> this somehow, so that I could then type the name of the variable
> further down in the document followed by a question mark to see that
> information again?
One way of establishing this feature is by having "custom d
We have now set the dates for this conference, 17-23rd December. All
official parts of the program will finish on the 21st however, with
only collaboration and coding sprints in the remaining two days.
We hope to have a conference registration page up within a day or two
so people can register and
Well that's because Sage has a preparser. You could as well say that because
f(a) = 2 is invalid Python code, so should it be invalid Sage code,
regardless of whether it's a function definition or not.
This, on the other hand, is perfectly valid Python:
>>> def f(x):
... a = 1
... def f
Thank you!
2011/9/15 Keshav Kini :
> That is an IPython bug which was fixed in 0.11:
> https://github.com/ipython/ipython/issues/114 We could perhaps backport it
> but it might make more sense to just upgrade IPython soon.
>
> -Keshav
>
>
> Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
>
--
T
Dear developers,
In an engineering framework, I frequently define a long list of
symbolic variables, one per line, and add a comment about what it
represents, including the units. Would it be possible to formalise
this somehow, so that I could then type the name of the variable
further down in the
That is an IPython bug which was fixed in 0.11:
https://github.com/ipython/ipython/issues/114 We could perhaps backport it
but it might make more sense to just upgrade IPython soon.
-Keshav
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@g
Consider the following invalid Python code:
>>> def f(x):
... a=1
... f(a)=2
...
File "", line 3
SyntaxError: can't assign to function call
but Sage allows f to be defined:
sage: def f(x):
: a=1
: f(a)=2
:
sage: type(f)
It doesn't make sense to me to allow this t
I appreciate help on using multiline strings containing % (this is usefull
for latex strings). In the following I want that "%" is not converted
to _ip.magic.
This also affects sage docstrings (using ... for continuation). In pure
python docstrings this is not a problem.
CASE 1
sage: txt = ""
Dear Minh and Keshav ,
thank you for fast answer.
There are now two facts I think new sage programmers like me would like to
read in the development user guide:
1. An example that "..." is currently in use instead of natural "...:"
(until the fix is done).
2. An example for modules in secti
10 matches
Mail list logo
