Re: [sage-devel] how should the expression relation test be named?

[Ralf Stephan]

>
>   ex.is_zero(simplify=False) 
>   ex.is_zero(simplify=True) 


This fits if ex is an equality. But what about: if x>0 ?
Two functions are necessary for inequalities because (x>0).__nonzero__
is called by (x>0)._cmp_ in case of eg. uniq(list of exes) and
here print or alphabetical order is called for, not proof.

So there is still a need for hold/truth() etc it seems.

-- 
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.

[sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Johan S . R . Nielsen]

> 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.

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.

Re: [sage-devel] maxima install should not consider local config files

[Francois Bissey]

> On 24/09/2015, at 16:51, Bill Janssen  wrote:
> 
> Compiling Sage from scratch (6.8 sources) fails because the maxima install 
> fails, because it loads ~/quicklisp/setup.lisp.
> 
> Am I the first Lisp programmer to try this?

I suspect you are. Is there a variable you can set to point to a “setup.lisp” 
file?
If there is we could had a location in the sage install tree to bypass any local
files. And can you open a ticket.

François

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] how should the expression relation test be named?

[Vincent Delecroix]

On 24/09/15 03:47, Ralf Stephan wrote:


   ex.is_zero(simplify=False)
   ex.is_zero(simplify=True)


This fits if ex is an equality. But what about: if x>0 ?
Two functions are necessary for inequalities because (x>0).__nonzero__
is called by (x>0)._cmp_ in case of eg. uniq(list of exes) and
here print or alphabetical order is called for, not proof.

So there is still a need for hold/truth() etc it seems.


I like the is_zero which is consistent with the rest of Sage (ie 
sage.structure.element.Element). But note that the default 
implementation there is


def is_zero(self):
return not self

def __nonzero__(self):
return self != self._parent.zero()

I think that if a relation is fed into such a test it should have break 
earlier if it was not expected. Note that in a context related to your 
initial problem, this works


sage: matrix([x==3])
[x == 3]

Should it?


I do not like hold since it is already used as a keyword everywhere in 
symbolics


sage: cos(pi, hold=True)
cos(pi)

Vincent

--
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.

Re: [sage-devel] how should the expression relation test be named?

[Ralf Stephan]

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 3:02:05 PM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> def is_zero(self): 
>  return not self 
>

This is the same as return not bool(self) which calls self.__nonzero__().

this works 
>
> sage: matrix([x==3]) 
> [x == 3] 
>
> Should it? 
>

That seems no longer relevant (I just checked, nonzero is not called).

But this is even worse:

sage: (x==3).is_zero()
True

So this ticket could easily disallow it.

> I do not like hold since it is already used as a keyword everywhere in 
symbolics 

Maxima has "is(relation)". How about this?
 

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] maxima install should not consider local config files

[Bill Janssen]

I'll see if I can figure that out.  The Lisp is ECL, which I'm not very 
familiar with.

Bill

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 11:57:38 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
>
> > On 24/09/2015, at 16:51, Bill Janssen  
> wrote: 
> > 
> > Compiling Sage from scratch (6.8 sources) fails because the maxima 
> install fails, because it loads ~/quicklisp/setup.lisp. 
> > 
> > Am I the first Lisp programmer to try this? 
>
> I suspect you are. Is there a variable you can set to point to a 
> “setup.lisp” file? 
> If there is we could had a location in the sage install tree to bypass any 
> local 
> files. And can you open a ticket. 
>
> François

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[John Cremona]

On 24 September 2015 at 03:49, Johan S. R. Nielsen  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.

Re: [sage-devel] how should the expression relation test be named?

[Bill Page]

What answer should be expected when it is not possible to show that an
expression is zero?  Would you expect that

   ex.is_zero() = not(ex.is_nonzero()) ?

I suppose that I should expect True or False from

  bool(ex=0)

and False in the case that it cannot be shown to be true. But I am not
so sure about is_...  Do you expect only two possible outcomes and an
runtime error in the case of a failure to decide one or the other?

On 24 September 2015 at 02:47, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
>>   ex.is_zero(simplify=False)
>>   ex.is_zero(simplify=True)
>
>
> This fits if ex is an equality. But what about: if x>0 ?
> Two functions are necessary for inequalities because (x>0).__nonzero__
> is called by (x>0)._cmp_ in case of eg. uniq(list of exes) and
> here print or alphabetical order is called for, not proof.
>
> So there is still a need for hold/truth() etc it seems.
>
> --
> 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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Jori Mäntysalo]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:


We have dozens of examples in Sage where well-established abbreviations are
used, without aliases.
E.g. matrices have LU() and LLL() methods, or e.g. groups.matrix.GL
groups.matrix.GO  groups.matrix.GU


LLL is mentioned in the developer's guide: "Use all lowercase function 
names - - Note, however, that some functions do have uppercase letters 
where it makes sense. For instance, the function for lattice reduction by 
the LLL - -".


Something similar could be added about abbreviations. Basically "If in 
doubt, use full name. Never abbreviate to save only few letters. Always 
mention commonly used abbreviations and aliases in docstring."


--
Jori Mäntysalo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 10:11:24 UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > You are invited to open a ticket demanding that the function 
> > rshcd_from_close_prime_powers() 
> > be called 
> > 
> regular_symmetric_hadamard_matrix_with_constant_diagonal_from_close_prime_powers()
>  
>
>
> I hope that you will not blame me for shortening this function, as 
> indeed its full name is (precisely) 80 characters long. You just can't 
> write this while staying belong the 80-characters limit (especially in 
> indented code).  


> In this context I thought that it was not a problem, as this function 
> is merely a helper function for: 
>
> how the hell does it matter? Your logic seems to be that a user will 
stumble upon 
an abbreviated name it will make him uncomfortable. 
 

> def regular_symmetric_hadamard_matrix_with_constant_diagonal 
>
> Which is *not* shortened, as you conveniently failed to notice. 
>

I duly noticed, I even used it to copy/paste the suggested name...


 

> > The only meaningful rule is that well-established abbreviations are used 
> in 
> > places where it is meaningful. 
>
> The fact that your functions appear publicly in graphs. is 
> another reason for me to be clear about their meaning. 
>
> graphs.T2starGQGraph 
>
> is, you will admit, rather unclear for a public constructor. I believe 
> that naming it 
>
> graphs.T2starGeneralizedQuadrangleGraph 
>
> would solve it partially. 
>
 
No I will not admit it is unclear. If one doesn't know what a 
GeneralizedQuadrangle is, it's won't help. If one does know, he'd know what 
GQ stands for.
Anyhow, it is documented that it has to do with generalised quadrangles.

We have dozens of examples in Sage where well-established abbreviations are 
used, without aliases.
E.g. matrices have LU() and LLL() methods, or e.g. groups.matrix.GL 
 groups.matrix.GO  groups.matrix.GU

 


> Nathann 
>
> Nathann 
>

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 15:02:39 UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:18:58 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> IMHO abbreviations are OK when they are known to basically every 
>>> mathematician, e.g. ZZ. Which translates to about undergrad level. Just ask 
>>> a undergraduate student what a T2starGQ graph is and you'll have your 
>>> answer.
>>>
>>
>> Huh? Ask an undergraduate what a  T2starGeneralizedQuadrangle graph is. 
>> Result will be the same.
>>
>
> You are missing the point. Of course Sage contains stuff that are beyond 
> the undergrad syllabus. All I'm saying that you shouldn't abbreviate it, 
> then. E.g. searching for "Generalized Quadrangle" easily finds an 
> explanation for what that is, whereas searching for GQ brings you to the 
> website of the Gentlemen's Quarterly magazine.
>

the function is documented, and one can easily see what it is about, no 
need to google. In comparison, try googling for ZZ, or for GL.

Signature:  graphs.T2starGQGraph(q, dual=False, hyperoval=None, 
field=None, check_hyperoval=True)
Docstring:
   Return the collinearity graph of the generalized quadrangle
   T_2^*(q), or of its dual

FYI, Mathscinet finds 34 papers with abbreviation GQ in the title; 1 refers 
to something else, 33 refer to generalized quadrangles.


And by the way, look at the docstring fot LLL:
Docstring:
   Return LLL reduced or approximated LLL reduced lattice R for this
   matrix interpreted as a lattice.

"matrix interpreted as lattice..." maybe it should be "lettuce" there?

FYI, Mathscinet finds 34 papers with abbreviation LLL in the title.


Or even better, look at  BKZ method for matrices. I must say I didn't know 
this abbreviation. Anyone does know?

FYI, Mathscinet finds 8 papers with abbreviation BKZ. But only 2 are 
relevant to BKZ for matrices, the rest are about some stuff in 
fluid dynamics known as K-BKZ.


Now you  seem to be telling me that GQ (33 times mentioned in titles of 
maths papers) is an obscure abbreviation  and cannot be used in Sage 
function names, while LLL 
(wow, 20% more times in titles)  and BKZ (wow, mentioned 2 times in titles 
of maths papers) are just great to have as it is...


-
We could have fixed lots of broken docs in Sage, instead of having this 
useless discussion.

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Volker Braun]

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:18:58 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> IMHO abbreviations are OK when they are known to basically every 
>> mathematician, e.g. ZZ. Which translates to about undergrad level. Just ask 
>> a undergraduate student what a T2starGQ graph is and you'll have your 
>> answer.
>>
>
> Huh? Ask an undergraduate what a  T2starGeneralizedQuadrangle graph is. 
> Result will be the same.
>

You are missing the point. Of course Sage contains stuff that are beyond 
the undergrad syllabus. All I'm saying that you shouldn't abbreviate it, 
then. E.g. searching for "Generalized Quadrangle" easily finds an 
explanation for what that is, whereas searching for GQ brings you to the 
website of the Gentlemen's Quarterly magazine.

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Volker Braun]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:36:20 AM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> FYI, Mathscinet finds 8 papers with abbreviation ...
>>
>
That is utterly irrelevant, MathSciNet only indexes research papers. So its 
obviously biased towards cutting-edge research. If anything, a large number 
of hits on MathSciNet is indicative of an abbreviation *not* being known 
outside of a specialized research community. 

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 13:28:45 UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:08:36 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> We have dozens of examples in Sage where well-established abbreviations 
>> are used, without aliases.
>> E.g. matrices have LU() and LLL() methods, or e.g. groups.matrix.GL 
>>  groups.matrix.GO  groups.matrix.GU
>>
>
> IMHO abbreviations are OK when they are known to basically every 
> mathematician, e.g. ZZ. Which translates to about undergrad level. Just ask 
> a undergraduate student what a T2starGQ graph is and you'll have your 
> answer.
>

Huh? Ask an undergraduate what a  T2starGeneralizedQuadrangle graph is. 
Result will be the same.

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:18:58 UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 24 September 2015 13:28:45 UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:08:36 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>>
>>> We have dozens of examples in Sage where well-established abbreviations 
>>> are used, without aliases.
>>> E.g. matrices have LU() and LLL() methods, or e.g. groups.matrix.GL 
>>>  groups.matrix.GO  groups.matrix.GU
>>>
>>
>> IMHO abbreviations are OK when they are known to basically every 
>> mathematician, e.g. ZZ. Which translates to about undergrad level. Just ask 
>> a undergraduate student what a T2starGQ graph is and you'll have your 
>> answer.
>>
>  
>
Huh? Ask an undergraduate what a  T2starGeneralizedQuadrangle graph is. 
> Result will be the same.
>

By the way, neither ZZ nor QQ are well-established for outsiders of 
computer algebra. I'd expect more people knowing about the meaning of GL or 
SL than of QQ or ZZ.
 

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 15:34:46 UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 24 September 2015 15:02:39 UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:18:58 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO abbreviations are OK when they are known to basically every 
 mathematician, e.g. ZZ. Which translates to about undergrad level. Just 
 ask 
 a undergraduate student what a T2starGQ graph is and you'll have your 
 answer.

>>>
>>> Huh? Ask an undergraduate what a  T2starGeneralizedQuadrangle graph is. 
>>> Result will be the same.
>>>
>>
>> You are missing the point. Of course Sage contains stuff that are beyond 
>> the undergrad syllabus. All I'm saying that you shouldn't abbreviate it, 
>> then. E.g. searching for "Generalized Quadrangle" easily finds an 
>> explanation for what that is, whereas searching for GQ brings you to the 
>> website of the Gentlemen's Quarterly magazine.
>>
>
> the function is documented, and one can easily see what it is about, no 
> need to google. In comparison, try googling for ZZ, or for GL.
>
> Signature:  graphs.T2starGQGraph(q, dual=False, hyperoval=None, 
> field=None, check_hyperoval=True)
> Docstring:
>Return the collinearity graph of the generalized quadrangle
>T_2^*(q), or of its dual
>
> FYI, Mathscinet finds 34 papers with abbreviation GQ in the title; 1 
> refers to something else, 33 refer to generalized quadrangles.
>
>
> And by the way, look at the docstring fot LLL:
> Docstring:
>Return LLL reduced or approximated LLL reduced lattice R for this
>matrix interpreted as a lattice.
>
> "matrix interpreted as lattice..." maybe it should be "lettuce" there?
>
> FYI, Mathscinet finds 34 papers with abbreviation LLL in the title.
>
   47, sorry for typo. 

>
>
> Or even better, look at  BKZ method for matrices. I must say I didn't know 
> this abbreviation. Anyone does know?
>
> FYI, Mathscinet finds 8 papers with abbreviation BKZ. But only 2 are 
> relevant to BKZ for matrices, the rest are about some stuff in 
> fluid dynamics known as K-BKZ.
>
>
> Now you  seem to be telling me that GQ (33 times mentioned in titles of 
> maths papers) is an obscure abbreviation  and cannot be used in Sage 
> function names, while LLL 
> (wow, 20% more times in titles)  and BKZ (wow, mentioned 2 times in titles 
> of maths papers) are just great to have as it is...
>
>
>
> -
> We could have fixed lots of broken docs in Sage, instead of having this 
> useless discussion.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Volker Braun]

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:08:36 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> We have dozens of examples in Sage where well-established abbreviations 
> are used, without aliases.
> E.g. matrices have LU() and LLL() methods, or e.g. groups.matrix.GL 
>  groups.matrix.GO  groups.matrix.GU
>

IMHO abbreviations are OK when they are known to basically every 
mathematician, e.g. ZZ. Which translates to about undergrad level. Just ask 
a undergraduate student what a T2starGQ graph is and you'll have your 
answer.

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Volker Braun]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 1:51:04 AM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> Just as LLL, and probably even BKZ, are. And I wonder why Sage has LLL and 
> BKZ just fine, but cannot take one more relatively common abbreviation.
>

Google for "LLL" and its in the first 10 hits. I define that as "relatively 
common". GQ is not common, not by a long shot. Being used (widely or not) 
in a specialized research community only doesn't make it common.


-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 15:45:37 UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:36:20 AM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> FYI, Mathscinet finds 8 papers with abbreviation ...
>>>
>>
> That is utterly irrelevant, MathSciNet only indexes research papers. So 
> its obviously biased towards cutting-edge research. If anything, a large 
> number of hits on MathSciNet is indicative of an abbreviation *not* being 
> known outside of a specialized research community. 
>
> I merely wanted to point out that an abbreviation I am insisting on using 
is not made up by me, but widely accepted in the field.
Just as LLL, and probably even BKZ, are. And I wonder why Sage has LLL and 
BKZ just fine, but cannot take one more relatively common abbreviation.


 

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Dima Pasechnik]

You are invited to open a ticket demanding that the function 
rshcd_from_close_prime_powers()
 in 
 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/src/sage/combinat/matrices/hadamard_matrix.py
(already merged in 6.9.beta*)

be called  regular_symmetric_hadamard_matrix_with_constant_diagonal
_from_close_prime_powers()
Here the original poster of the thread (and the author of this function) 
deviated from the (unwritten?) policy he seems to advocate.

Well, there is a problem that the name is 80 characters long, and so with 
() it will be longer than 80 ;-)

No, seriously, this is ludicrous...

The only meaningful rule is that well-established abbreviations are used in 
places where it is meaningful. 

-
By the way, you are invited to 
review http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19226, which is held up by used by 
me there
well-established abbreviation GQ for Generalised Quadrangle.

The reviewer seems to be happy using RSHCD (much more obscure abbreviation) 
in his code and docs, and 
demanding that I expand GQ to Generalised Quadrangle everywhere.


Dima


On Thursday, 24 September 2015 00:49:54 UTC-7, Johan S. R. Nielsen 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. 
>
> 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.

Re: [sage-devel] maxima install should not consider local config files

[Dima Pasechnik]

I do have quicklisp setup, and I have never seen any problems with it. 
Could it be that it's ECL that is guilty, 
not Maxima...

e.g. can you run 

   sage --ecl

at the command prompt?



On Thursday, 24 September 2015 07:40:43 UTC-7, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> I'll see if I can figure that out.  The Lisp is ECL, which I'm not very 
> familiar with.
>
> Bill
>
> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 11:57:38 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 24/09/2015, at 16:51, Bill Janssen  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > Compiling Sage from scratch (6.8 sources) fails because the maxima 
>> install fails, because it loads ~/quicklisp/setup.lisp. 
>> > 
>> > Am I the first Lisp programmer to try this? 
>>
>> I suspect you are. Is there a variable you can set to point to a 
>> “setup.lisp” file? 
>> If there is we could had a location in the sage install tree to bypass 
>> any local 
>> files. And can you open a ticket. 
>>
>> François
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Nathann Cohen]

> You are invited to open a ticket demanding that the function
> rshcd_from_close_prime_powers()
> be called
> regular_symmetric_hadamard_matrix_with_constant_diagonal_from_close_prime_powers()

I hope that you will not blame me for shortening this function, as
indeed its full name is (precisely) 80 characters long. You just can't
write this while staying belong the 80-characters limit (especially in
indented code).

In this context I thought that it was not a problem, as this function
is merely a helper function for:

def regular_symmetric_hadamard_matrix_with_constant_diagonal

Which is *not* shortened, as you conveniently failed to notice.

> The only meaningful rule is that well-established abbreviations are used in
> places where it is meaningful.

The fact that your functions appear publicly in graphs. is
another reason for me to be clear about their meaning.

graphs.T2starGQGraph

is, you will admit, rather unclear for a public constructor. I believe
that naming it

graphs.T2starGeneralizedQuadrangleGraph

would solve it partially.

Nathann

Nathann

-- 
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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About abbreviation in function names

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 17:02:23 UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 1:51:04 AM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> Just as LLL, and probably even BKZ, are. And I wonder why Sage has LLL 
>> and BKZ just fine, but cannot take one more relatively common abbreviation.
>>
>
> Google for "LLL" and its in the first 10 hits. I define that as 
> "relatively common". GQ is not common, not by a long shot. Being used 
> (widely or not) in a specialized research community only doesn't make it 
> common.
>
>
> Google is irrelevant here; e.g. google GL and it will not be helpful. Or 
for QR, a matrix factorisation. Or for LU - another matrix factorisation. 
However, Mathscinet will tell you  QR and LU have many hundreds of papers 
devoted to them, with these abbreviations in the titles.



-- 
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.

[sage-devel] Re: libSingular functions require a ring parameter.

[Kwankyu Lee]

The ticket is waiting for a reviewer. Please!

-- 
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.