octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: naming scheme for the GSL package


From: Julien Bect
Subject: Re: naming scheme for the GSL package
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:34:10 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0

Le 20/10/2016 à 06:07, Susi Lehtola a écrit :
On 10/18/2016 01:58 AM, Julien Bect wrote:
I know, but that is not the question.

If people agree with me that full GSL names are better, I will deprecate
the old function names but keep them around for some time (perhaps a
very long time).

By the way, backward compatibility aside, what is your opinion on this
matter ?

I guess the consistency with gsl naming is a good argument, although I'm not totally sure if it's necessary to keep the whole "gsl_sf_" or if just "gsl_" would be better since it's shorter. But then again that wouldn't be very logical either, so I guess it's best to keep the original gsl function names.

Ok.  I will go for the full gsl functions names, then.

I wonder if there is a clever way to create function aliases in Octave : for instance, to have both "clausen" and "gsl_sf_clausen" call the same function.

If not, I will simply create duplicates of the functions that were there in the 1.08 release during bootstrap.

Any ideas ?




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]