There are about 100 distinct methods named `number_of_xxx`.  I'm a bit 
sceptical that changing or aliasing these to `num_xxx` is a good idea - 
mostly because of tab completion.

Martin

On Wednesday, 24 September 2025 at 16:39:57 UTC+2 Vincent Macri wrote:

> I agree that consistency is good. I prefer underscore naming, I find it 
> more readable and it's what PEP 8 recommends. I think number_of_facets is a 
> bit too long for my tastes (mostly because we try to adhere to line length 
> limits and long names make that annoying). If I were writing that code I'd 
> probably call it num_facets.
>
> Of course how much of a problem a long name is depends on how often it's 
> used. If we renamed the matrix nrows and ncols to number_of_rows and 
> number_of_columns then it would be very annoying to write an if statement 
> to check the matrix size against some other values and have that line fit 
> in 80 characters (sure you can wrap it, but I think that hurts 
> readability). Perhaps number_of_facets is not used so much that this is an 
> actual problem. But I think num_facets is a happy medium that is both clear 
> and short enough to not be annoying, which means that naming scheme can be 
> used consistently.
>
> For methods that are used very frequently (ncols, nrows, ngens, etc.) I 
> think it's probably fine to leave them as-is. We could add aliases for 
> num_cols, num_rows, etc. if we want.
>
> I recently added functionality to our documentation builder (
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40753) to detect aliased functions 
> and methods and not duplicate them in the HTML docs (it now says "alias of 
> [link to original]", before it just duplicated the docstring including all 
> the examples) so bloating the documentation with aliases isn't really a 
> problem anymore (in case someone was worried about that).
>
> One thing I would note is that changing the name of nfacets is technically 
> a breaking change and there should be an alias for the old name with a 
> deprecation warning in place for however long our depreciation period is.
>
> Also, thank you Frédéric for all the refactoring and code cleanup work 
> you've been doing!
>
> Vincent Macri (he/him)
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/191f10f1-f41f-45c8-bf5f-3a18fe44b4d1n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to