On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> > Granted: there should be an abstract class for word-like objects (or
> > more possibly generally objects with labels), and this method should
> > be implemented there. But in the mean time just leave it there.
>
> Note that the terminology is not uniform. Among others
> * evaluation
> * Parikh vector
> * Abelianization
> * number of occurences of letters
> * ...
>
> see [1]
>
> It would be nice that we have a convention for that. Should we put all
> of .evaluation(), .parikh_vector() and .abelianization() in the
> namespace of a word-like object ? Which one should be the prefered one
> ?
Thanks for the pointer. Hmm, let's see. Here are my appreciations of
pros and cons:
- Parikh vector: sounds too specific to a community; people outside
the community won't find it. We want to have variants that don't
return the result as a vector.
- Evaluation: probably specific to a community (algebraic
combinatorics if not Marne-la-vallée). The name does not convey the
main information (that we are going to the *commutative* world). It
has been around for a long time in MuPAD-Combinat
- Abelianization: contains the main information
- number of occurences of letters: very explicit but long
So altogether I hesitate between evaluation and abelianization, with a
preference for the second one but mitigated by the advantage of
minimal change :-)
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
