I think from aethetical point of view, it's better
to have it without prefix: geev.ijs.
If it becomes type-neutral, why compound both
hungarian notation prefixes?
--- Igor Zhuravlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> January 2, 2008 05:14 Viktor Cerovski wrote:
> > Igor Zhuravlov wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > - Current addon realization provides both double and complex interfaces,
> > > e.g.
> > > "dgeev.ijs" and "zgeev.ijs". Would it be better to implement single
> > > gate instead, say, "geev.ijs", with embedded dispatching directly to
> > > LAPACK's DGEEV/ZGEEV?
> >
> > I'd say that in such a case name "dzgeev.ijs" would be more appropriate
> > since it's about a single call of dgeev or zgeev.
>
> I'm ready to follow your suggestion. BTW, this naming convention won't be
> invariant in respect of hypotetical datatype addition ("s", "c") or removal
> in underlying lapack.ijs and lapack.so in future.
>
> There is another approach with wildchar in datatype position, e.g.
> "xgeev", "ugeev", "ageev" etc. Though, "no datatype mentioning at all" seemed
> to me a more J-ish way.
>
> --
> WBR,
> Igor
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
