Open SoongNoonien opened 4 months ago
We want new names in compliance with OSCAR naming guidelines, and in some cases "no names" at all. E.g. I imagine several of the print*
function will turn into show
methods for dedicated objects.
However, if we rename things, we definitely should add a table in the manual that translates the CHEVIE names to our names (or rather: translates CHEVIE constructs to our equivalents, which in some cases may be far more different than just a new name).
For functions that return a number of something, there is an ongoing standardization effort, see https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/pull/3305 for the discussion there and the proposed change to the docs (which as I write this is not fully settled as far as I know... but I've been out of the loop due to illness).
Maybe this can also be helpful here: https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/base/base/#Base.@deprecate
Most function (and type) names are really messy (e.g.
nrclasses
,nrchars
,chardeg
,printinfotab
, ...). Some of this is due to the heritage of the project. Julia is very different from Maple so the way one interacts with the ported library is different already and when things like #29 will be implemented this will be even more so.So is it even desirable to keep the messy names?