Open mkoeppe opened 4 years ago
See also #26668
I noticed this too but hadn't gotten around to it. I think now that a few people have a feel for how this works, we should rewrite the comment in sage_spkg_configure.m4. What's there is dubious, for example:
# The macro takes five arguments. The first, PACKAGE-NAME, is simply the
# base name of the SPKG. The first two arguments, both optional,
# implement two different kinds of checks (the first of which is more
# common).
What first two arguments? Is PACKAGE-NAME included in that?
# The next argument (which is less commonly needed) is an optional list of
This "next" depends on me knowing what the first two arguments are that it's talking about, and I don't.
# ... The last argument is again commands that
# are always run, but after the checks are performed (or if they are not
# performed):
#
# - CHECK - this should implement a test for whether the package is already
# ...
Last? Did we get all five? And why does the paragraph about the last argument then segue into a bullet list discussing all-but-one of them?
In short, I think we should drop the exposition from the top, and start with the bullet list, from...
The macro takes five arguments:
and then the discussion about those arguments should come after we know what they are. In particular the arguments can then be mentioned by name and position, so the reader knows exactly which argument we're talking about.
It should be checked whether #28788 added sufficient documentation.
Dependencies: #28788
pushing these forward to 9.2
Setting new milestone based on a cursory review of ticket status, priority, and last modification date.
This ticket improves the documentation of the m4 macros provided by
m4/sage_spkg_configure.m4
.Depends on #28788
CC: @dimpase @orlitzky
Component: documentation
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29018