|
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 ?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |