> > How about "close analogue". > > No, I don't like that. If nothing else, it will be more confusing to those > whose > first language is not English, and even though mine is, I don't like that > term.
Tom Boothby can "inventor" a word. I do like "analogues" though. m-w.com: "1:something that is analogous or similar to something else" Since the functions may have different modes, context, side-effects, options, evaluation order, precision, memory complexity/access order/ alignment, cpu/runtime complexity, test coverage etc. ad nausium I think the point is to call them "[Somewhat equivalent, but not the same.]" > >> Nobody can expect the commands to be identical - except for trivial ones > >> like > >> Sin[], Cos[]. In the case of factor() there are two very obvious > >> Mathematica > >> commands that provide broadly similar functionality. > > > Since Mma doesn't post it's BNF (Grammar), it's an exercise in reverse > > engineering. > > > -Don > > But we don't need that for documentation. I'd be quite keen to have Sage read > Mathematica input, or at least some sort of converter. Then one needs to be a I don't think anyone is going to step forward to write a parser generator and maintain it, so I agree that trivial similars in the docstrings is a good idea. Cheers, Don -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
