I think that 'laplace' is too general. It could refer to the laplace
operatior diff(f(x,y),x,2) + diff(f(x,y),y,2) or some other object.
I think it is best to use
laplace_transform and inverse_laplace_transform.
If anyone finds it too long, he or she can use aliases.
-sen
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Kostas Oikonomou <ko at research.att.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess we all agree on
>>
>> (a) name standardization (of a sort to be agreed upon!) is a
>> good thing
>> (b) name consistency is a good thing
>> (c) short names are good for often-used commands/functions
>> (d) long names are good otherwise
>> (e) name/command completion is a good thing
>> (f) a nicely-organized manual is a good thing
>
> Yes, these are all good things.
> Just to circle back to the proposal on the table:
> how about changing "ilt" to "laplace_inverse".
>
> I'm not proposing any other name changes at the moment.
>
> best
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sheldon E. Newhouse | e-mail: sen1 at math.msu.edu |
| Mathematics Department | |
| Michigan State University | telephone: 517-355-9684 |
| E. Lansing, MI 48824-1027 USA | FAX: 517-432-1562 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------