poor documentation of elliptic integrals in functions/special.py

[dkrenn]

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@willyshop.com on 2/13/2012.

---

Apply attachment: trac_12596.3.patch to Sage library

Component: documentation

Author: Benjamin Jones

Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman, Jeroen Demeyer

Merged: sage-5.0.beta14

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12596

[kcrisman]

comment:1

This is more or less true for all of those. We could do a better job of making these symbolic as well.

[benjaminfjones]

Author: Benjamin Jones

[benjaminfjones]

Description changed:

--- 
+++ 
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
 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](https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pCwvGVwSMxTzT6E2xNdo5fA) by <willy@willyshop.com> on 2/13/2012.
+
+---
+
+Apply [attachment: trac_12596.patch](https://github.com/sagemath/sage/files/ticket12596/trac_12596.patch.gz) to Sage library

[kcrisman]

comment:3

Good idea. A few minor things.

• Trivial typo of definition
  • Needs to escape the underscore in the elliptic_pi since otherwise there are horrible LaTeX 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 just phi? 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

[kcrisman]

Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman