On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote:
> On Jan20, 2014, at 08:42 , David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: > >> * I've also renamed INVFUNC to INVSFUNC. That's a pretty invasive > change, and > >> it's the last commit, so if you object to that, then you can merge up > to > >> eafa72330f23f7c970019156fcc26b18dd55be27 instead of > >> de3d9148be9732c4870b76af96c309eaf1d613d7. > > > > > > Seems like sfunc really should be tfunc then we could have invtfunc. I'd > probably > > understand this better if I knew what the 's' was for in sfunc. I've not > applied > > this just yet. Do you have a reason why you think it's better? > > My issue with just "invfunc" is mainly that it's too generic - it doesn't > tell > you what it's supposed to be the inverse of. > > I've always assumed that 's' in 'sfunc' and 'stype' stands for 'state', > and that > the naming is inspired by control theory, where the function which acts on > the > state space is often called S. > > Ok, that makes more sense now and it seems like a reasonable idea. I'm not not quite sure yet as when someone said upthread that these "negative transition functions" as I was calling them at the time should really be called "inverse transition functions", I then posted that I was going to call the create aggregate option "invfunc" which nobody seemed to object to. I just don't want to go and change that now. It is very possible this will come up again when the committer is looking at the patch. It would be a waste if it ended up back at invfunc after we changed it to invsfunc. Regards David Rowley
