On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 06:13:04PM +0200, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> We have to do something about this undocumented functions, though.
Sounds like we have found a way to make it work. See #9107.
Other than that, I agree that we don't care so much about the pdf doc,
but that using it to double check
FWIW, I also tend to use the PDF version of the reference manual to hunt
for LaTeX errors in the doc (not only those which break the compilation,
but also semantic ones). In my experience, they are much easier to spot in
the PDF than in the HTML (which also displays badly on older browsers -- I
> +1 to this argument.
Indeed, it is a good argument.
We have to do something about this undocumented functions, though.
Oh, and it would be cool if --warn-links was the default for doc
building, too :-P
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sa
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:03:55 AM UTC-4, John Cremona wrote:
>
> On 12 June 2014 14:54, Volker Braun >
> wrote:
> > I don't usually read the pdf docs either, but it is the only test that
> the
> > math in doctstrings actually validates. Sphnix doesn't know if the
> > `\frac{1}{2}` in th
On 12 June 2014 14:54, Volker Braun wrote:
> I don't usually read the pdf docs either, but it is the only test that the
> math in doctstrings actually validates. Sphnix doesn't know if the
> `\frac{1}{2}` in the doctstring is admissible math, and if not it'll only
> fail in the browser when the en
I don't usually read the pdf docs either, but it is the only test that the
math in doctstrings actually validates. Sphnix doesn't know if the
`\frac{1}{2}` in the doctstring is admissible math, and if not it'll only
fail in the browser when the end-user tries to read the docs...
On Thursday
Hi Nathann,
On 2014-06-12, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> (remember that removing the pdf manual can also save trees, for it is
> likely that some people got the idea to print these files :-P)
Some people print html pages...
Anyway: I have never used the pdf manual, and if it is correct that the
line w
The Magma Handbook has 5583 pages -- remember the mission statement!
Of course I never look at the Sage pdf reference (OK, I just did -- it
is rather beautiful)
John
On 12 June 2014 13:45, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> (remember that removing the pdf manual can also save trees, for it is likely
> that
(remember that removing the pdf manual can also save trees, for it is
likely that some people got the idea to print these files :-P)
On 12 June 2014 14:43, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Hello guys !
>
> I wanted to ask you if you had ever found the pdf version of the manual
> useful for anything, or i
