-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 481
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
#5567 should throw a deprecation warning #5885
Comments
comment:1
What alternate syntax for a region of this kind would be appropriate, though? Anything requiring a lambda construction or a previous function declaration seems awkward. Perhaps the fix is to require variable declaration (e.g.
but otherwise keep equify and friends. In particular, the current doctest is too symmetric - better would be
since otherwise it isn't clear that the correct variables are associated with the correct input range otherwise. I'm also changing the milestone to 4.0, concurrent with the Pynac switch. If anyone posts a patch they can change it back :) I don't think it's a blocker either, but will accept Jason's categorization in those terms due to the switch. |
comment:2
If we've released for 2 months without fixing this, it doesn't make sense to keep it as a blocker. |
comment:3
Given that #7809 has positive review and has changed this particular doctest, AND given that region_plot in this format has existed for close to a year with no complaints, and given that #7809 now makes clear what we want the behavior to be, I think it's time to close this ticket. If jason or was concurs, then let's do it. |
comment:4
I concur, but for a totally different reason. The deprecation warning is now thrown (probably because of the changes in #7809?):
|
comment:5
(to take care of a reviewer comment) -- I feel that we don't have to put in a DeprecationWarning doctest since the deprecation warning happens not in the region_plot function, but at a lower level, and it is already doctested there. I think this ticket can be closed as fixed once #7809 is merged. |
comment:6
uh, I'll put this as "needs review", and maybe kcrisman can give it a positive review? |
comment:7
Sorry, I didn't see this recently. Yes, we do get an appropriate deprecation warning. I don't know that there is really an author or reviewer for this... just a closure. Also, the plot is still one pixel off :) |
comment:8
Fixed due to #7809. |
#5567 fixes a bug, but in doing so, avoids the deprecation warning that should happen when the user types in
See #5413 for details on the deprecation warning. This deprecation warning should be triggered when the code in the doctest of #5567 is run.
CC: @jasongrout
Component: calculus
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/5885
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: