Re: naming scheme for the GSL package

[Julien Bect]

Le 20/10/2016 à 08:34, Julien Bect a écrit :
> 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.

Done.  Now full GSL functions are used and displayed in the 
documentation (but short functions names are still available for 
functions that were already available in release 1.0.8).

Because of this change naming scheme, and also because of the long 
period of unmaintained-ness since 1.0.8, I have decided to increase to 
version number to 2.0.0.  I hope it's ok.

I believe that we are now ready for a release...  Anyone wants to test 
?   (make dist -> cd target -> pkg install -> pkg load -> gsl_sf_test)

@++
Julien