Conversation
balacij
requested review from
JacquesCarette,
bmaclach,
samm82 and
smiths
as code owners
|
This is ready for review :) |
|
|
||
| reviewContent :: [Contents] | ||
| reviewContent = [reviewHead, reviewContextP1, LlC E.lcrectVel, LlC E.lcrectPos, LlC E.lcrectNoTime, reviewEqns, reviewContextP2] | ||
| reviewContent = [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If reviewContent is now empty, why is it even needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was technically code that is already in main. It was shown in this PR review because the HEAD was not updated. It's updated now.
However, this comment stands regardless, so I filed #4853.
| "source": [ | ||
| "## Rectilinear Kinematics: Continuous Motion\n", "\n" | ||
| "## Rectilinear Kinematics: Continuous Motion\n", | ||
| "<a id=\"Sec:RectKin\"></a>\n", "\n" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I'm not keen on this change:
- why is it out-dented?
- why is it empty?
This is a symptom that something in this fix is a bit too much of a hack, and shows up in this way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, all of the formatting in the .ipynb file is bad. It can use a review.
As per my previous comment, this is code already in main. So, this is out of scope for this PR. I believe this is in scope for the greater review of the .ipynb file generator: #3877.
|
I've updated the HEAD so the real diff is shown now. Ready for review. Sorry for the troubles, @JacquesCarette ! |
2 participants
Closes #4775
Builds on #4778
As of #4778,
headSentis unused and hence can be deleted, as this does.