[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: naming scheme for the GSL package
From: |
ederag |
Subject: |
Re: naming scheme for the GSL package |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:57:45 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/3.16.7-42-desktop; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) |
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 22:55:00 Julien Bect wrote:
> ...
> In fact, the "gsl_sf_" prefix is removed. For instance :
> "gsl_sf_clausen" is made available as "clausen".
>
> I see two difficulties with this naming scheme :
>
> a) Name conflicts. Some GSL functions names would coincide with Octave
> function names. This problem has been solved in earlier release of the
> GSL package by adding a "_gsl" suffix, but this makes the naming scheme
> inconsistent.
>
> b) Short names. Some function names become very short and look like
> variable names. For instance, "gsl_sf_eta" becomes "eta", "gsl_sf_Si"
> becomes "Si"... I am not comfortable with such short names.
>
> I propose to keep full GSL names to solve both problems.
>
> Any opinions ?
>
> @++
> Julien
Agreed, full GSL names would be much better.
Best regards,
ederag
- naming scheme for the GSL package, Julien Bect, 2016/10/13
- Re: naming scheme for the GSL package,
ederag <=
- Re: naming scheme for the GSL package, Julien Bect, 2016/10/16
- Re: naming scheme for the GSL package, Susi Lehtola, 2016/10/17
- Re: naming scheme for the GSL package, Julien Bect, 2016/10/18
- Re: naming scheme for the GSL package, Susi Lehtola, 2016/10/20
- Re: naming scheme for the GSL package, Julien Bect, 2016/10/20
- Re: naming scheme for the GSL package, ederag, 2016/10/26