Not sure if this is very helpful, but I think `roots` would be a great name to use instead of `zero`.
You could maybe use `stepresponse` instead of `step`, but it's a little hard to parse with Julia's squishedcase convention. On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-8, James Crist wrote: > > I'm currently writing a control theory package for Julia. The MATLAB > control theory toolbox has been around forever, and is *the standard* > grammar for the field. Almost all control theory packages in other > languages just replicate the same set of functions, with the same names. > The function names are so hardcoded into me, that I'm reluctant to change > them. > > That said, several of them conflict with Julia base function names. For > example: > > `zero(sys::LTISystem)` would compute the zeros of the system in MATLAB, > but in Julia this should create the "zero-valued" system > > `step(sys::LTISystem)` computes the step-response, but in julia it gives > the step for a range > > There are others as well. I see two options here: > > 1.) I begrudgingly rename them, and attempt to retrain my muscle-memory > when writing code :/ > 2.) Some functions don't do what they do in julia base for these types > > #1 probably is for the best, but I'm wondering what the community response > is to this? I come from a heavy Python background, and without namespaces, > I'm not sure how to handle function name-clashing best. >
