Am Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 13:36:31 UTC+2 schrieb Dima Pasechnik:
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:36:06 AM UTC, Martin R wrote:
>> well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for 
>> sciences without a good database, there is doi.
>> concerning readability, there is a well known justification for using 
>> sequential numbers
> we talk about readability of the source code, too.
> IMHO one should not name variables and functions just using sequential 
> numbers :-)
> Hm, I'd say that reference identifiers in docstrings and variable names 
are a bit different.  The argument in favour of using numeric references is 
that it encourages writing: "In 1783, Xin and Müller [1] have shown foo" 
instead of "In [XiMü1783] foo is shown".

> Having said this, I again would argue for an option to have aliases.
> E.g. say there is a popular Arxiv preprint cited 10 times in the source, 
> which then becomes
> a publication. It is really unnecessary to change all these 10 citations?

I have implemented the following for findstat: as long as title and authors 
coincide (using a threshold for Levenstein distance to get rid of some 
noise such as accents and punctuation, etc.) the two entries are merged, 
with preference (in the bibtex file) given to the MR entry.  (I use 
MathSciNet, zbMath, arXiv and DOI for citations).


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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to