There is also an overview at https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/40935
On Wednesday, 1 October 2025 at 09:47:37 UTC+2 Martin R wrote: > Dear all! > > There are now pull requests (see below) that attempt more uniformity. I > think that the following de facto consensus emerged: > > 1. in general, we keep the old names as aliases, but replace occurences of > the old names also in the codebase > 2. we use n_xxx for methods that are used frequently and number_of_xxx for > the rest > > Some of the pull requests have already positive review, some I made > "needs: info", because I do not want to make a silly decision. I don't > think that any of them are already merged. > > In general, I see two arguments in favour of the pull requests, and one > against: > > * it makes it easier for the casual user to remember the method names > * it makes it possible to grep for such methods (as opposed to `nrows`) > * the aliases pollute the name space > > The last point implies that we should be careful in choosing the new > method names. For example, I just realize that > Graph.number_of_connected_components > might be better just Graph.n_components. So, please voice your opinion now > :-) > > A few people (including myself) warn that the old methods should not be > deprecated, even though this might be tempting for better aesthetics. We > have to keep in mind that there is code outside that uses the old method > names which we do not control, and which is run only rarely. For example, > there is a code snippet for almost every statistic in the findstat > database, many of which would be affected in this particular case. It > would be a shame if these would stop working. > > Best wishes, > > Martin > > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40875 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40887 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40914 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40917 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40918 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40932 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40939 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40940 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40941 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40942 > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40943 > > On Thursday, 25 September 2025 at 13:42:13 UTC+2 Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I think it will be hard to achieve consistency on this matter. Unless of >> course somebody wants to spent the next few years doing that. Any volunteer >> ? >> >> (0) I think we should allow "n*" and "n_*" and "number_of_*" only. I have >> a preference for "n_*". >> >> (1) My current proposal is to use "n_*" everywhere in geometry/ This is a >> small thing, and ready for review. >> >> (2) one could also easily get rid of all "num_*" as there are not so >> many. This is just annoying for graphs, >> >> (3) concerning alias versus deprecation, I would prefer to deprecate. But >> we can also keep the aliases and let our heirs do the deprecation. >> >> Frédéric >> >> >> >> Le jeudi 25 septembre 2025 à 03:05:30 UTC+2, Kwankyu Lee a écrit : >> >>> I regard >>> >>> "num_xxx", "n_xxx" and "nxxx" >>> >>> as different abbreviations of "number_of_xxx". So to abbreviate >>> "number", we are using "num" and "n". I think we should choose just one. I >>> prefer "n" (and hate "num"). >>> >>> Hence in my opinion, we should keep >>> >>> (1) "number_of_" like in "number_of_facets" >>> (2) "n_" like in "n_facets" >>> (3) "n" like in "ngens" >>> >>> and use (3) for names that occur very frequently. >>> >>> Kwankyu >>> >> -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/9b0c95b4-c567-4ae0-8e30-993d2497f15dn%40googlegroups.com.
