On Thursday, November 27, 2014 at 5:29:35 PM UTC+7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > Of course, proposing the statu quo may be unpopular ;-). Another
> solution I
> > can propose is to keep f.coefficients() as it is, make f.coeffs() an
> alias
> > of the former, and only keep f.list() for the list
I *did ask if I should deprecate, I just wasn't sure if we can deprecate
the alias.
On Wed Dec 03 2014 at 4:10:25 PM john_perry_usm john.pe...@usm.edu wrote:
Will the ticket you've opened also deal with multivariate polynomial
ideals, or are you working on symbolic expressions only?
Yes.
It seems to me that as a general principle, a method whose name is an
abbreviation of the name of another method should actually be the same
method. Anything else is hugely confusing to a user. Both the
functionalities described are, of course, useful, but giving them such
similar names has
Le 27/11/2014 10:47, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
It seems to me that as a general principle, a method whose name is an
abbreviation of the name of another method should actually be the same
method. Anything else is hugely confusing to a user. Both the
functionalities described are, of course,
Of course, proposing the statu quo may be unpopular ;-). Another solution I
can propose is to keep f.coefficients() as it is, make f.coeffs() an alias
of the former, and only keep f.list() for the list of all the coefficients.
If I understand what you said, you want coefficients to be left
Le 27/11/2014 11:29, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
Of course, proposing the statu quo may be unpopular ;-). Another solution I
can propose is to keep f.coefficients() as it is, make f.coeffs() an alias
of the former, and only keep f.list() for the list of all the coefficients.
If I understand what
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:23:09 AM UTC-8, Bruno Grenet wrote:
While I agree that the current names can be confusing, we have to be
careful not to make something even more confusing. As mentioned earlier
by John, f.coefficients() is correlated with f.exponents() and I think
it is a
