Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#12596 closed enhancement (fixed)
poor documentation of elliptic integrals in functions/special.py
Reported by: | dkrenn | Owned by: | mvngu |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-5.0 |
Component: | documentation | Keywords: | documentation |
Cc: | Merged in: | sage-5.0.beta14 | |
Authors: | Benjamin Jones | Reviewers: | Karl-Dieter Crisman, Jeroen Demeyer |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
try typing elliptic_pi?
, the documentation gives you absolutely no clue as to which argument corresponds to phi
, n
, or m
.
This was reported on the public bug reports from the notebook interface by <willy@…> on 2/13/2012.
---
Apply trac_12596.3.patch to Sage library
Attachments (1)
Change History (11)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
- Summary changed from poor documentation of elliptic_pi to poor documentation of elliptic integrals in functions/special.py
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Karl-Dieter Crisman
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Good idea. A few minor things.
- Trivial typo of definition
- Needs to escape the underscore in the
elliptic_pi
since otherwise there are horribleLaTeX
warnings. - I'm not sure how we should deal with the
\phi
as a variable, since of course variables don't start with slashes, but in the formula it would need one. Maybe justphi
? I'm not sure what's ideal. - Just having a reference for all of these many things would be nice, but at least on this ticket, since Wikipedia's defn. is a little different and I'm too lazy to look it up in a real reference
- Needs to escape the underscore in the
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Thanks for looking at it, Karl-Dieter. I think I've fixed the issues you pointed out. I agree, references are good. [AS] section 17.7 follows a slightly different convention with the parameters than Maxima, but the Maxima docs refer to it and point out the difference in notation. I've changed the variable "phi" to "t" to eliminate inconsistency between "\phi" and "phi".
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
The HTML documentation doesn't actually build:
writing output... [ 40%] sage/functions/generalized writing output... [ 40%] sage/functions/hyperbolic writing output... [ 40%] sage/functions/log writing output... [ 40%] sage/functions/orthogonal_polys writing output... [ 41%] sage/functions/other writing output... [ 41%] sage/functions/piecewise writing output... [ 41%] sage/functions/prime_pi writing output... [ 41%] sage/functions/special WARNING: inline latex u'\\text{elliptic_pi}(n, \\phi, m) = \\int_0^\\phi \\frac{dx}{(1 - n \\sin(x)^2)\\sqrt{1 -\nm \\sin(x)^2}}.': latex exited with error: [...] ! Missing $ inserted. <inserted text> $ l.33 \end{gather} ! Extra }, or forgotten $. \textdef@ ...th {#1}\let \f@size #2\selectfont #3} } l.33 \end{gather} [...goes on a long time...]
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
The HTML documentation doesn't actually build:
That's a problem with the previous patch. Sorry, I forgot to update the ticket description to indicate the new patch. It's changed now.
comment:8 Changed 8 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:9 Changed 8 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Karl-Dieter Crisman to Karl-Dieter Crisman, Jeroen Demeyer
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
The formatting of the documentation is good now and the result looks good.
comment:10 Changed 8 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.0.beta14
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
This is more or less true for all of those. We could do a better job of making these symbolic as well.