On Jun 24, 3:57 am, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good point! Here is a snapshot of the current documentation: > > http://www.stp.dias.ie/~vbraun/Sage/html/en/reference/sage/geometry/c... > > Right now, I'm essentially using abbreviations N="spanned_lattice" and > M="spanned_lattice_dual" in the method names. If we use long method > names, should the documentation also be rewritten to not refer to N/M > lattices? > > Volker
I think documentation can look like something similar to "Let \sigma be this cone, N be its ambient lattice, and M its dual. This function computes the saturation of the sublattice generated by \sigma, i.e. N(\sigma)=\span(\sigma \cap N." That way the usual notation is used, but it does not rely on any actual names outside the function. As for names and trying to keep them reasonably short, how about following Florent's comment and using * cone.spanned_lattice * cone.quotient_lattice * cone.cospanned_lattice * cone.coquotient_lattice (with "_basis" added if functions return bases)? To be consistent, it would make sense to also add a function * cone.colattice() which will be just another way to say cone.lattice().dual() Andrey -- 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
