On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As for shortening the name, I'm all for it. For consistency, I would > > do it for every class matching the pattern *LinearOperator* if you all > > agree. Also, I think that "linear" is as important as "operator" in > > "LinearOperator" (even if lilnearity might seem an obvious feature, > > provided all the classes we are discussing are actually located in the > > linear package). So what do you think of LinOp as a compromise? > > Something like RealLinOp instead of RealLinearOperator, > > NonSquareLinOpException, etc... > > I like full words. I don't know about "linear" vs "operator" in > "LinearOperator" but I think the "linear" can safely be dropped in > "SingularLinearOperator." Abbreviations don't really shorten names. They just make them impossible for non-native speakers to guess. And if abbreviations are done by non-native speakers, they become impossible for anybody to guess. +1 to avoiding abbreviations where possible.
