On 2017-05-20 00:03, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> This is my last attempt to save the guideline.
>
> A Sage user has an integer X. He hit the tab key and get "X.is_prime",
> and then ask what this method does by entering "X.is_prime?". Imagine
> that he reads
>
> (1) Return whether the integer is prime.
There are many files in src/bin with the first line being "#!/usr/bin/env
python"
Should we convert all of them to cal sage-python23 or only a few critical
ones ?
Le samedi 20 mai 2017 07:59:34 UTC+2, Frédéric Chapoton a écrit :
>
> Thanks, John, for the helping hand.
>
> Yes, this unicode err
Thanks, John, for the helping hand.
Yes, this unicode error will be the next one we need to handle. But first
we need to understand what is going wrong before. Commenting the line in
src/setup.py is certainly not the right solution..
Le samedi 20 mai 2017 00:43:25 UTC+2, John H Palmieri a écri
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:27:54 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:46:15 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:51:46 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We have almost reached the state of vanilla s
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:46:15 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:51:46 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We have almost reached the state of vanilla sage building with
>> SAGE_PYTHON3=yes (this does not mean working !). But something
This is my last attempt to save the guideline.
A Sage user has an integer X. He hit the tab key and get "X.is_prime", and
then ask what this method does by entering "X.is_prime?". Imagine that he
reads
(1) Return whether the integer is prime.
(2) Return whether this integer is prime.
(3) Retu
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:51:46 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> We have almost reached the state of vanilla sage building with
> SAGE_PYTHON3=yes (this does not mean working !). But something seems to go
> wrong, and I would like help to find and fix the current problem.
On 19/05/2017 20:39, kcrisman wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:29:42 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
Strong -1 (still)
Even though this is something confusing to newcomers, I think that I have
to agree with Travis. That said, I don't see why one couldn't just say "if
``self`` (the
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:04:16 AM UTC-4, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2017, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> > .. INPUT::
> >
> > We would need to add "INPUT", "OUTPUT", etc. as Sphinx directives. Then
> we would have control over the format for the
> > output.
That sounds
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:29:42 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
> Strong -1 (still)
>
Even though this is something confusing to newcomers, I think that I have
to agree with Travis. That said, I don't see why one couldn't just say "if
``self`` (the lattice) is reflexive".
--
You
Welcome on board! Do not hesitate to use this list for your questions
relative to Sage development in general (but use trac ticket for
specific issues concerning the code).
Vincent
On 19/05/2017 02:13, Zachary Gershkoff wrote:
Hello,
This year I will be working on the matroid and graph theor
I am following Johan: +1 to "this lattice" and +1/2 to "the lattice"
On 19/05/2017 00:20, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
Hi,
I prepared H2 revised from G2 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for
the better. So this time* if I fa
+1
On 19/05/2017 00:17, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
Hi,
I prepared H1 revised from G1 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for
the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the
guideline will be simply
+1
On 19/05/2017 00:22, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
Hi,
I prepared H3 revised from G3 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for
the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the
guideline will be simply
Dear all,
We have almost reached the state of vanilla sage building with
SAGE_PYTHON3=yes (this does not mean working !). But something seems to go
wrong, and I would like help to find and fix the current problem.
So, for people that want to do something else than answering polls, you can
try
On 05/19/2017 02:55 AM, david.coud...@inria.fr wrote:
> A method like `Graph().is_bipartite(certificate=False)` returns either
> ``True``or ``False`` when ``certificate==False``, or a tuple `(bool,
> dict)` when ``certificate==True``. What would be the recommended writing
> style for the output blo
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 4:32:58 AM UTC-5, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
> +1
>
> In English, I understand that "foo; bar" is used if "bar" gives additional
> information about "foo" while "foo, bar"is used to list "foo" and "bar" on
> equal level. But I am not a native speaker...
>
Actually, that pr
+1
On 19/05/2017 00:24, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
Hi,
I prepared H4 revised from G4 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for
the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the
guideline will be simply
On Fri, 19 May 2017, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
My suggestion would be
OUTPUT:
- If ``certificate=True`` return only True or False.
- If ``certificate=False`` return either
* (True, XX), where XX is...
* (False, XX), where XX is...
I think this is too mu
+1 to "this lattice" and +1/2 to "the lattice". In either case I think
it should mention in the guideline that using ``self`` is also
acceptable if the sentence would become more clear.
Kwankyu Lee writes:
> Hi,
>
> I prepared H2 revised from G2 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
> to
+1
--
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
> As I mentioned on the other thread, since OUTPUT is not a list of things
> (as opposed to INPUT), I would prefer
>
> OUTPUT: tuple of lattices
+1 on this option (and hence -1 to the thread's suggestion).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel
+1
--
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
> H6. Write
>
> INPUT:
>
> - ``n`` -- integer (default: 1); the number of repetition
+1. I agree with the grammatical reasons to slightly prefer ";" over ","
(but I am not a native speaker).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To uns
+1
Kwankyu Lee writes:
> Hi,
>
> I prepared H3 revised from G3 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
> to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for
> the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the
> guideline will be simply discard
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 8:55:13 AM UTC+2, Simon King wrote:
>
> Almost +1
>
> Actually I thought this guideline has already been used, with
> a minute difference:
>- ``n`` -- integer (default 1), the number of repetitions
>
+1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:22:15 AM UTC+2, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> **
> H3. If you agree, flag +1; if you don't, flag -1.
>
+1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails f
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:17:39 AM UTC+2, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
> H1. If you agree, flag +1; if you don't, flag -1.
>
> +1
--
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,
>
> My suggestion would be
>
> OUTPUT:
>
> - If ``certificate=True`` return only True or False.
> - If ``certificate=False`` return either
>* (True, XX), where XX is...
>* (False, XX), where XX is...
>
>
>
I think this is too much information which will overlap with the INPUT
blo
+1
H5 is intended to be conforming with "INPUT:" block.
The above example is somewhat misleading. If the output is just a "tuple of
lattices" (without long additional explanation), then the entire OUTPUT
block can be omitted since the one-liner can be "Return a tuple of lattices
that ".
>
> Here is my opinion. But a metaquestion: Why can't someone (like Kwankyu)
> just got direct emails and make a summary?
>
Hmm. Just to make the result of the voting transparent to everyone.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To
On Thu, 18 May 2017, david.coud...@inria.fr wrote:
A method like `Graph().is_bipartite(certificate=False)` returns either
``True``or ``False`` when ``certificate==False``, or a tuple `(bool, dict)`
when ``certificate==True``. What would be the recommended writing style for
the output block ?
M
+1
In English, I understand that "foo; bar" is used if "bar" gives additional
information about "foo" while "foo, bar"is used to list "foo" and "bar" on
equal level. But I am not a native speaker...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" grou
+1
--
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
+1
--
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
+1
The point is that "the lattice" (or a slight variant "this lattice") is
officially recommended than "``self``".
--
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
t
On Fri, 19 May 2017, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
Hi Jori,
H2. Write
if the lattice is reflexive
+1
It is very important that you give this vote directly to the thread
Basically the number of votes that it gets will determine whether the
guideline will be put into the
+1
--
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
-1
I am with Jeroen on this one.
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 23:25:41 UTC+1, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I prepared H5 revised from G5 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
> to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for
> the better. So this time* if I fail
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Almost +1
>
> Actually I thought this guideline has already been used, with
> a minute difference:
>- ``n`` -- integer (default 1), the number of repetitions
>
> (so, "default" instead of "default:" and ")," instead of ");",
> since "path co
On 2017-05-19 08:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> As I mentioned on the other thread, since OUTPUT is not a list of things
> (as opposed to INPUT), I would prefer
>
> OUTPUT: tuple of lattices
+1 for this option
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-deve
On 2017-05-19 00:24, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> I prepared H4 revised from G4 based on your ideas and wishes. It was
> hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a
> proposal for the better. So this time_ if I fail to get approval from
> most of you, the guideline will be simply dis
On 2017-05-19 00:22, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> I prepared H3 revised from G3 based on your ideas and wishes. It was
> hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a
> proposal for the better. So this time_ if I fail to get approval from
> most of you, the guideline will be simply dis
On 2017-05-19 00:20, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I prepared H2 revised from G2 based on your ideas and wishes. It was
> hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a
> proposal for the better. So this time_ if I fail to get approval from
> most of you, the guideline will be s
On 2017-05-19 08:35, Simon King wrote:
> PS, to the +1 given earlier: I suggest that one should also write `f(x)`
> instead of f(x).
+1
--
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
On 2017-05-19 00:17, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> I prepared H1 revised from G1 based on your ideas and wishes. It was
> hard to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a
> proposal for the better. So this time_if I fail to get approval from
> most of you, the guideline will be simply disc
X on itself
-1 in combination with G3. Namely, in G3 you want that the one-line
description does not specify the output clearly, and in G4 you want
that a more-than-one-line description of the output is missing as
well. And that would be desastrous.
On 2017-05-17, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> We do a p
+1
On 2017-05-18, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I prepared H3 revised from G3 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
> to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for
> the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the
> guideline will be
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 06:33:35AM +, Simon King wrote:
> +1
>
> Here I like that the typesetting is uniform and does not distinguish
> between functions with a single return type and functions with multiple
> return types.
+1. Note that some (actually many) methods have a single input, and i
+1
On 2017-05-18, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I prepared H5 revised from G5 based on your ideas and wishes. It was hard
> to make a compromise from your differing opinions and reach a proposal for
> the better. So this time* if I fail to get approval from most of you, the
> guideline will be
+1
Here I like that the typesetting is uniform and does not distinguish
between functions with a single return type and functions with multiple
return types.
On 2017-05-17, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> We do a poll for adopting an official guideline for docstrings (see
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticke
51 matches
Mail list logo
