Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify naming policy further: "long_form_names" over "shrt_frm_nms" #1623

Closed
fingolfin opened this issue Oct 12, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

Comments

@fingolfin
Copy link
Member

Some of us (including @fieker @ThomasBreuer @thofma) recently discussed the discoverability of Oscar function names, and in the end agreed that the only way to make this possible in general is to avoid arbitrary abbreviations and to spell out things.

We should make this explicit in the dev guide; and then start to adapt everything for the resulting changes. As with our decision to use underscores consistently as name separators, this creates some tension with Julia builtin functions and some packages. These can be partially addressed by using @alias.

Some changes implied by this:

  • gen -> generator (but of course we can keep the old name as an @alias indefinitely)
  • gens -> generators
  • ngens -> number_of_generators
  • ... and many many more
@fingolfin
Copy link
Member Author

More stuff from some notes I had sitting around locally (in some cases overlaps with the above):

  • short names that need longer alias (or be renamed outright?)

    • gen
    • gens
    • minpoly
    • charpoly
    • n_connected_components -> number_of_connected_components ?
    • n_maximal_cells
    • n_maximal_cones
    • n_maximal_polyhedra
    • n_nodes
    • haspreimage
      • urgh there is even a warning saying this:

        Do not confuse haspreimage with the function has_preimage, which
        works on variable of type GrpGenToGrpGenMor

  • what about

    • nrays
    • nrels
    • ngens
    • ncols
    • nv
    • ne
    • Hecke.t2
    • Hecke.norm2
    • psylow_subgroup (conflict with sylow_subgroup)
    • quotient (exists!) vs. quo
    • intersection vs. intersect

@fingolfin fingolfin mentioned this issue Dec 14, 2022
29 tasks
@JohnAAbbott
Copy link
Contributor

Should we copy the discussion from here into the issue #1826 ? And then "close" this discussion?

@fingolfin
Copy link
Member Author

Done

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants