On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Skipper Seabold <jsseab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think this one might be for Pauli.
>>>
>>> I've run into an odd problem that seems to be an interaction of
>>> numpydoc and autosummary and large classes.
>>>
>>> In summary, large classes and numpydoc lead to large tables of class
>>> methods, and there seems to be an error in the creation of the large
>>> tables in latex.
>>>
>>> Specifically, if I run 'make latexpdf' with the attached minimal
>>> sphinx setup, I get a pdflatex error ending thus:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> l.118 \begin{longtable}{LL}
>>>
>>> and this is because longtable does not accept LL as an argument, but
>>> needs '|l|l|' (bar - el - bar - el - bar).
>>>
>>> I see in sphinx.writers.latex.py, around line 657, that sphinx knows
>>> about this in general, and long tables in standard ReST work fine with
>>> the el-bar arguments passed to longtable.
>>>
>>> if self.table.colspec:
>>> self.body.append(self.table.colspec)
>>> else:
>>> if self.table.has_problematic:
>>> colwidth = 0.95 / self.table.colcount
>>> colspec = ('p{%.3f\\linewidth}|' % colwidth) * \
>>> self.table.colcount
>>> self.body.append('{|' + colspec + '}\n')
>>> elif self.table.longtable:
>>> self.body.append('{|' + ('l|' * self.table.colcount) + '}\n')
>>> else:
>>> self.body.append('{|' + ('L|' * self.table.colcount) + '}\n')
>>>
>>> However, using numpydoc and autosummary (see the conf.py file), what
>>> seems to happen is that, when we reach the self.table.colspec test at
>>> the beginning of the snippet above, 'self.table.colspec' is defined:
>>>
>>> In [1]: self.table.colspec
>>> Out[1]: '{LL}\n'
>>>
>>> and thus the LL gets written as the arg to longtable:
>>>
>>> \begin{longtable}{LL}
>>>
>>> and the pdf build breaks.
>>>
>>> I'm using the numpydoc out of the current numpy source tree.
>>>
>>> At that point I wasn't sure how to proceed with debugging. Can you
>>> give any hints?
>>>
>>
>> It's not a proper fix, but our workaround is to edit the Makefile for
>> latex (and latexpdf) to
>>
>> https://github.com/statsmodels/statsmodels/blob/master/scikits/statsmodels/docs/Makefile#L94
>> https://github.com/statsmodels/statsmodels/blob/master/scikits/statsmodels/docs/make.bat#L121
>>
>> to call the script to replace the longtable arguments
>>
>> https://github.com/statsmodels/statsmodels/blob/master/scikits/statsmodels/docs/fix_longtable.py
>>
>> The workaround itself probably isn't optimal, and I'd be happy to hear
>> of a proper fix.
>
> Thanks - yes - I found your workaround in my explorations, I put in a
> version in our tree too:
>
> https://github.com/matthew-brett/nipy/blob/latex_build_fixes/tools/fix_longtable.py
>
> - but I agree it seems much better to get to the root cause.
When I tried to figure this out, I never found out why the correct
sphinx longtable code path never gets reached, or which code
(numpydoc, autosummary or sphinx) is filling in the colspec.
Josef
>
> See you,
>
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
