On 24 September 2015 at 03:49, Johan S. R. Nielsen <santaph...@gmail.com> wrote: >> rings.integral_domains.DVR() >> instead of >> rings.integral_domains.DiscreteValuationRing() > > I would definitely prefer DiscreteValuationRing() here. > > Mathematics is pretty verbosely written, and I think Sage should reflect > how most mathematics is written. I'm in a research field with strong > interaction with electrical engineers, and I find their papers very > difficult to read because they put abbreviations everywhere: the > abstract introduces the first 10, and the rest are scattered throughout > the paper. > > Code is read and modified many more times than its written. It's much > more important that one immediately understands the code, than it is to > save a few keystrokes. Add to that the aforementioned benefits from > search (in Sage, on Google, etc), as well as for new Sage-users and > people outside the field. > > But we're not writing Java, and I agree with shortening of function > names etc. when it's not a standard term and no added information is > given, e.g.: > not compute_hermite_normal_form() > not get_hermite_normal_form() > not hnf() > but hermite_normal_form() > > (OK, stupid example but I couldn't immediately think of a better one) > > About tab-completion in Vim/Emacs: I have many files open, and if I'm > working on something, e.g. GeneralizedReedSolomonCode, then probably one > of those files contains that word. Then I have tab-completion for it.
I tried that in emacs as I had not heard of it and it sounded useful -- but (in a python file) got an error message about requiring a python process to be running. John > > Best, > Johan > > > Dima Pasechnik writes: > >> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 11:10:46 UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> On 2015-09-23 19:43, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>> > There are well-accepted abbreviations in various areas of maths, e.g. >>> > ILP for Integer Linear Programming. >>> >>> Let me answer this with a real life anecdote: >>> >>> When I was a young graduate student, I attended some seminar. Literally >>> the first sentence of the talk was "Let R be a D.V.R.". The speaker said >>> the abbreviation "D.V.R.". I couldn't understand anything of the >>> introduction and only after 10 minutes or so, I realized that the talk >>> was about discrete valuation rings, a concept which I knew. So, >>> "well-accepted" is not the same as "known by everybody". >>> >> >> I don't buy it, for lectures are often much less interactive compared to >> using Sage. >> We're talking about being able to have >> >> rings.integral_domains.DVR() >> instead of >> rings.integral_domains.DiscreteValuationRing() >> >> (well, we don't have rings.TAB, but we do have graphs.TAB, with plenty of >> graphs.BlahBlahGraph() there) >> >> >> >>> Jeroen. >>> > > -- > > -- > 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
