On 05/18/2014 06:30 PM, Martin Baker wrote:
> Example 1
> ---------
> The following function documentation was written by Waldek so I will
> take that to be your ideal form:
>
> kroneckerSum : (%, %) -> %
> ++ kroneckerSum(a, b) calculates the Kronecker sum
> ++ of the matrices a and b.
>
> This has the advantage of using few words (although those words don't
> tell me a lot that is not in the function signature).
That's not my ideal. It misses a clear input output specification or at
least a reference to such a definition. I agree with Martin that in
mathematics we need definitions to make clear what we are talking about.
It already starts with the question whether or not 0 is a "natural number".
And like Martin, I think it is important either to specify the input
(i.e. restrict for example to matrices of a certain shape) or document,
what the function is doing if the input makes no sense.
/: (%, %) -> %
++ a/b returns the quotient of a and b
is a really bad documentation. In general, I don't even know what a
"quotient" is. Would 1/0 be OK? Does it return 0 or abort the program?
How can someone even slightly trust a function that is not properly
specified? That's not mathematics.
Anyway, Martin, you seem to have lots of ideas and want to discuss them
in order to get confirmation that this is the "correct" direction to go.
What if you don't get that confirmation? There are two options.
1) You don't care what others say and just implement your ideas.
2) You wait some more time for someone to realise your ideas.
What I want to say is that Waldek has some ideas, I have some idea, you
have some ideas. They probably all differ in some way. Now suppose I
don't have a clear idea how I would realise what I have in mind, but you
have and start coding and come up with something fancy that improves
FriCAS (at least for you), but isn't a realisation of my idea.
If I see an improvement and cannot compete to your implementation, do
you think, I will ignore the improvement?
Yes, it's important to find out about about a consens for a direction to
go, but if you (or a small group around you) are alone, then just go,
implement and surprise the others with the result. There's a good chance
that *you* count as the expert.
Maybe my words sound a bit harsh, but I think the best way to improve
FriCAS is to take the repo and improve it in the way *you* like and then
see if others like it. It's a bit like the wiki ideas
Be bold! http://axiom-wiki.newsynthesis.org/BeBold
Ralf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fricas-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
