On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I think this is one of those exceptions where we should probably not go by
> our standard and call the function bcpowmod(). It looks a bit funny that
> all of the BC functions don't have underscores but only one does. It'll
> probably confuse people mo
At 05:10 PM 12/10/2002 -0800, Sara Golemon wrote:
I'm hearing two options here:
1) Name the new function bcpowmod() to keep it similiar to existing
functions, we'll worry about renaming the functions in this module
later...
2) Name the new function bc_powmod(), rename the existing functions now,
I'm hearing two options here:
1) Name the new function bcpowmod() to keep it similiar to existing
functions, we'll worry about renaming the functions in this module
later...
2) Name the new function bc_powmod(), rename the existing functions now,
and create aliases. Possibly introduce an ini opt
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I think this is one of those exceptions where we should probably not go by
> our standard and call the function bcpowmod(). It looks a bit funny that
> all of the BC functions don't have underscores but only one does. It'll
> probably confuse people mor
At 21:47 10.12.2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I think this is one of those exceptions where we should probably not go by
our standard and call the function bcpowmod(). It looks a bit funny that
all of the BC functions don't have underscores but only one does. It'll
probably confuse people more than
I think this is one of those exceptions where we should probably not go by
our standard and call the function bcpowmod(). It looks a bit funny that
all of the BC functions don't have underscores but only one does. It'll
probably confuse people more than it helps.
What do you guys think?
Andi
At
