Closed emmakatherina closed 3 years ago
Merging #249 into master will decrease coverage by
0.18%
. The diff coverage is100%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #249 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.57% 90.39% -0.19%
==========================================
Files 17 20 +3
Lines 2070 2082 +12
==========================================
+ Hits 1875 1882 +7
- Misses 195 200 +5
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
gap/utils.g | 93.97% <ø> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
gap/main.gd | 87.5% <ø> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
gap/echelon-form.gd | 100% <100%> (ø) |
|
init.g | 76.66% <100%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
gap/RREF.gd | 100% <100%> (ø) |
|
gap/echelon-form.g | 100% <100%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
gap/upstream.gd | 100% <100%> (ø) |
|
gap/RREF.g | 100% <100%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
gap/upstream.g | 100% <100%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
PackageInfo.g | 95.06% <0%> (-1.28%) |
:arrow_down: |
... and 4 more |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 79182c5...81c1166. Read the comment docs.
I'll try to have a closer look tomorrow. Two things off the top of my head.
@Returns a record
is enough.The formulation @Returns a record that contains information of an echelonized version of mat
does not add much information. It is imprecise and thus may be more confusing than helpful. Especially since directly afterwards you specify what your record has to look like. This has to be changed in several places.
The High-Level Functions
should come first. Ideally someone who only wants to use the package should not have to look into the Low-Level Functions
section at all. Put these two sections into different chapters.
Put the Low-Level Functions
even after the chapter Examples
. The new names and order I suggest are:
General Information
-> Introduction
Functions
-> Gaussian Elimination
High-Level Functions
-> ?Low-Level Functions
-> Utility functions
Examples
-> Examples
this name is fineLow-Level Functions
DoEchelonMatTransformationBlockwise
here. I would not consider
DoEchelonMatTransformationBlockwise
to be a high-level function from a user's perspective.
A typical user should not have to worry about DoEchelonMatTransformationBlockwise
.A good documentation to compare ourselves with would be e.g. the documentation of the CAP package, available here
Superseded by #253
Fixes issue #245.
There are many bad formulations. Feel free to read through the documentation and fix them! Afterwards please merge.