FWIW, my suspicion is that this will be a forever incompatibility with
OpenAxiom -- just a note for those library writers who are aiming all
AXIOM flavours.
-- Gaby
I must say that I would like that library writers follow the tradition
and do *not* use underscores at all in their names, at least not in
exported names. From that point of view I don't care much about a syntax
change.
Although I think that Gaby's remark does not really introduce an
incompatibility at Spad level (one shouldn't use "ri" and "r_i" in the
same function anyway), I tend to agree with him. It's bad enough that
there are 3 axiom-flavour currently.
What I, actually, find bad is that with this change, the "escape"
meaning of _ is made more complicated. And this is something I oppose
much more than writing one or two underscores inside identifiers.
In fact, this change would on the one hand encourage the use of
underscores in names (since one wouldn't have to write two of them), but
on the other hand discourage them for people who just care about writing
a domain/category and want it used in any PanAxiom system (because of
possible incompatibilities).
In short, I tend to be against this change.
We should have names like possiblyInfinite? instead of
possibly_infinite? If your change encourages package writers to switch
from the CamelCase notation to underscores, that would be bad for end
users trying to guess how a function they would like to call is actually
named.
Ralf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS -
computer algebra system" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
