The difference between the toric lattice computations and the root lattices is that the (co)weight lattices are one of the main features of interest to the end user, while the various toric lattices are mostly of internal use for computing something else.
I don't have a strong opinion against long-style names except that there will be some very long names to accommodate some often-used constructions. If nobody minds cone.spanned_lattice_dual_quotient_by_spanned_lattice_dual_basis(supercone) then I'll be happy to change things. Right now its cone.M_quotient_basis(supercone) which, I agree, is not as self- explanatory. But then, this is not something that you are dying to compute on a normal day. Volker On Jun 23, 9:57 pm, Andrey Novoseltsev <novos...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My general two cents: explicit (=long) is better than implicit > > (=short). However it should be easy for the user to define its own short > > names. > > My proposal in the ticket was to add a function that will create short > synonims for all such methods, if a user so desires. Of course, if > this is done, the internal code should use the "default" names only, > to allow both versions to work. -- 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
