Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update docstrings in logic module #15013

Closed
pscurek mannequin opened this issue Aug 6, 2013 · 10 comments
Closed

update docstrings in logic module #15013

pscurek mannequin opened this issue Aug 6, 2013 · 10 comments

Comments

@pscurek
Copy link
Mannequin

pscurek mannequin commented Aug 6, 2013

The docstrings in the logic module all need to be updated.

Depends on #14951
Depends on #14952

Component: documentation

Keywords: logic

Author: Paul Scurek

Reviewer: William Stein

Merged: sage-5.12.beta5

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15013

@pscurek pscurek mannequin added this to the sage-5.12 milestone Aug 6, 2013
@pscurek pscurek mannequin added c: documentation labels Aug 6, 2013
@williamstein
Copy link
Contributor

comment:1

LGTM. I don't see any problems with this; it's also safe since it doesn't touch code, just docs.

Improving what is listed in the reference manual for logic is a good idea, since it is currently spartan, but this should be in another ticket.

@pscurek
Copy link
Mannequin Author

pscurek mannequin commented Aug 7, 2013

Attachment: trac_15013_logic_docstrings.patch.gz

Apply this last. This patch includes updated docstrings, but depends on the other patches.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:3

Please make it clear which patch(es) should be applied.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

Reviewer: William Stein

@pscurek
Copy link
Mannequin Author

pscurek mannequin commented Aug 20, 2013

comment:5

The third patch listed in the attachments, trac_15013_logic_docstrings.patch, is the only patch that should be integrated into sage for this ticket. The first two patches are the patches for the two dependencies for this ticket, #14951 and #14952, which I put here for the convenience of the reviewer.

@pscurek pscurek mannequin added s: needs review and removed s: needs info labels Aug 20, 2013
@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:6

Replying to @pscurek:

The first two patches are the patches for the two dependencies for this ticket, #14951 and #14952, which I put here for the convenience of the reviewer.

To reduce confusion, I think it is better not to do that. The "Dependencies" field should be sufficient. I removed those other patches which do not belong to this ticket.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:8

There are problems building the documentation:

dochtml.log:[logic    ] /mazur/release/merger/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/logic/booleval.py:docstring of sage.logic.booleval:9: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
dochtml.log:[logic    ] /mazur/release/merger/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/logic/booleval.py:docstring of sage.logic.booleval.eval_f:14: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
dochtml.log:[logic    ] /mazur/release/merger/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/logic/booleval.py:docstring of sage.logic.booleval.eval_formula:16: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
dochtml.log:[logic    ] /mazur/release/merger/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/logic/propcalc.py:docstring of sage.logic.propcalc:25: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.

The correct syntax is (note the use of a single vs. double colons)

EXAMPLES:

Some explantory text::

    sage: some_doctest

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

comment:9

what about the former ticket #8797 ? and its sub-tickets ?

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

comment:10

Attachment: trac_15013_addon1.patch.gz

I have taken care of the doc building problem

therefore I set back to positive review

@jdemeyer
Copy link

jdemeyer commented Sep 2, 2013

Merged: sage-5.12.beta5

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants