Re: [Axiom-developer] Patches

[Waldek Hebisch]

Dear Martin,

> Dear Bill, Tim, Waldek,
> 
> here are some patches for bug #355.
> 

Thanks for the patches.

> Tim, Waldek: would you be so kind to include these patches in the respective
> distributions.  By the way, I just found the documented version of the patch 
> to
> STTAYLOR, it is on MathAction, #312, powern.patch. I include a version that
> applies smoothly to wh-sandbox here, too.  Please apply this one also.
> 

I have a little problem with documentation parts.  In combfunc.spad.pamphlet
part you write:

+      ++ Gamma(a,x) returns the incomplete Gamma function applied to a and x.
+      ++ Concerning differentiation, it is regarded as a function in the second
+      ++ argument only.

This behaviour is clearly a bug.  We can not compute correct derivative,
but at least we should leave it unevalueated or signal error.  In general
I very much prefer to fix bugs insted of documenting them.  If you
really want to document a bug at least make clear that it is a bug.

In sttaylor.spad.pamphlet part you put explanations after corresponding
code.  I find this confusing, I think that putting explanations before
code is much clearer.

> 
> Waldek: do you prefer if I commit to your branch myself, or is this form good
> for you, too?
> 

I general it is better if author of a patch applies it.  Currently
we have low volume of patches and I can apply them myself if
needed.  Still if I think that patch needs correction (as in
this case) when I do the correction myself I may get something different
than what you indended.  So it is better that you prepare
corrected patch (or present some sting reason to keep patch
as is) and once the new patch is approved apply it.


-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch
address@hidden