On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 07:03:29PM -0700, Tom Boothby wrote:
> +1 to deprecation
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Nathann Cohen wrote:
> >> Hello everybody !!!
> >>
> >> Following
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/bfeb9b1828a04350/10681dbb1f189b2f,
> >> I created a patch to change predecessors/successors to neighbors_in and
> >> neighbors_out.
> >>
> >> It is available there : http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7157
> >>
> >> Robert Miller thought it would be hard to just change these functions as
> >> some people may already have script using the old ones, which they would
> >> have to change if this patch was to be merged.
> >>
> >> Our question is then :
> >> * do we change them anyway ?
> >> * Do we keep the old ones as copies ?
> >> * Is there a good pythonic way to deprecate functions, and is this what
> >> we should do ?
> >>
> >
> > Do not just delete the functions. At least deprecate the functions
> > (there are lots of examples in the sage code of how to do this; just
> > search for "deprecation").
> >
> > I'm okay with the functions sticking around and being aliases, since
> > they are such fundamental functions and are valid terminology. I'm also
> > okay with deprecating them if that's what everyone else thinks is best.
+1 for keeping them. I definitely see the point of limiting aliases,
but depending on the context I naturally want to use one or the
other of the two naming conventions.
Btw: what's the convention used in networkx?
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
