Naming conventions and strategies throughout OSCAR

[HereAround]

For consistency and user friendliness across the many different areas of OSCAR, it might be good to discuss and ideally agree on the following.

Naming conventions:

• quotient_ring vs. quo,
• residue_ring vs. quo,
• subscheme vs. sub or closed_sub,
• hypersurface_complement vs. open_sub,
• ambient_affine_space vs. ambient_space (is affine not implicitly clear?)
• ...

Strategies:

• specifying many variable names (multivariate polynomial ring, graded ring, finitely presented groups, schemes, toric varieties, ...)
• ...

[thofma]

I don't think the soon to be introduced quotient_ring has any relation to quo, since it takes only one argument (the ring).

[fieker]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 08:02:24AM -0800, Tommy Hofmann wrote: I don't think the soon to be introduced `quotient_ring` has any relation to `quo`.

I think it has - and there are already various quotient_rings that sneaked in...

…

-- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #1714 (comment) You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ***@***.***>

[afkafkafk13]

I think that we should have this discussion in person -- not with erveryone typing in a github issue (and maybe only sum up the results here afterwards for later reference).

To your examples above just one remark:
A hypersurface_complement of an affine variety is much more specific than a Zariski open subset of it; only the former carries the structure of an affine variety itself.

[fingolfin]

Another one: complement_of_ideal -> complement maybe?

[HechtiDerLachs]

Some first steps have been taken in #1738 .