[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:23 AM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > On Sep 7, 12:54 am, Ondrej Certik wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM, John H Palmieri >> wrote: >> >> I tried your patch (I made a sphinx extension out of it), but it >> didn't work for me --- the backsubstitution to docstringlines

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Sep 7, 12:54 am, Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > I tried your patch (I made a sphinx extension out of it), but it > didn't work for me --- the backsubstitution to docstringlines failed > in the extension (maybe sphinx is inconsistent here), but

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > A patch which does a basic version of this (changing $blah$ to `blah`, > but allowing no custom delimiters, no parsing of $$blah$$ or \[ blah > \]) is here: > >   I tried your patch (I made a

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

A patch which does a basic version of this (changing $blah$ to `blah`, but allowing no custom delimiters, no parsing of $$blah$$ or \[ blah \]) is here: John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send an e

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Sep 3, 5:54 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > John H Palmieri wrote: > > On Sep 3, 12:37 pm, "William A. Stein" wrote: > >> On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > >>> So how about submitting a patch to sphinx   > >>> fixing it? > >>> Ondrej > >> That's a good idea.  It would certainly b

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

John H Palmieri wrote: > On Sep 3, 12:37 pm, "William A. Stein" wrote: >> On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: >> >>> So how about submitting a patch to sphinx >>> fixing it? >>> Ondrej >> That's a good idea. It would certainly be better than having to >> change Sage -- it would

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Sep 3, 12:37 pm, "William A. Stein" wrote: > On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > > So how about submitting a patch to sphinx   > > fixing it? > > > Ondrej > > That's a good idea.  It would certainly be better than having to   > change Sage -- it would keep things "pure", but

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

> and it bugs me that I have to type > > :math:`\eta` > > instead of just $\eta$. So how about submitting a patch to sphinx fixing it? +1 Cheers, Georg > > Ondrej --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubs

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

> >> [X] Yes, give me $'s! > >> > >> [ ] No, this doesn't bug me; let's keep ReST/Sphinx in Sage "pure". > David --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Sep 3, 1:40 pm, Rob Beezer wrote: > On Sep 3, 1:22 pm, John Cremona wrote: > > > I have never used Ondrej's :math: in front, but maybe I should have. > > I recall seeing somewhere that in ReST/Sphinx you can configure a > default "mode" for the backticks, Right: in the file SAGE_ROOT/devel/s

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:22 PM, John Cremona wrote: > > I believe that people rather than abstractions should take priority. > We are used to using $...$ for maths, so why should we not make the > docs markup system we use adapt to us rather than the other way round? >  I find the view 'let's keep

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

>> [X] Yes, give me $'s! >> >> [ ] No, this doesn't bug me; let's keep ReST/Sphinx in Sage "pure". > > I've been annoyed by this ever since we switched over to ReST. I also have been annoyed by this. Nick --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send an ema

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Sep 3, 1:22 pm, John Cremona wrote: > I have never used Ondrej's :math: in front, but maybe I should have. I recall seeing somewhere that in ReST/Sphinx you can configure a default "mode" for the backticks, so I think Ondrej is writing docs for one his other systems and he *must* use math:`x

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

I believe that people rather than abstractions should take priority. We are used to using $...$ for maths, so why should we not make the docs markup system we use adapt to us rather than the other way round? I find the view 'let's keep ReST/Sphinx in Sage "pure" ' very hard to understand! 2009/9

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM, William Stein > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I've been spending the last few days going between writing a lot of >> code with very math heavy Sphinx docstrings containing many >> backticks, >> and writing LaTeX

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, William Stein wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been spending the last few days going between writing a lot of > code with very math heavy Sphinx docstrings containing many backticks, > and writing LaTeX documents (papers/notes/etc.) using $ signs for math > mode. It is driving me tota

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM, William Stein wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been spending the last few days going between writing a lot of > code with very math heavy Sphinx docstrings containing many backticks, > and writing LaTeX documents (papers/notes/etc.) using $ signs for math > mode.  It is dri

[sage-devel] Re: back ticks versus $ signs

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM, William Stein wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been spending the last few days going between writing a lot of > code with very math heavy Sphinx docstrings containing many backticks, > and writing LaTeX documents (papers/notes/etc.) using $ signs for math > mode.  It is dri