Robert Dodier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Raymond Toy (RT/EUS)
> <raymond.toy at ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> These names are ok. But I would suggest that we use Macsyma names, if
>> they exist. If not, then perhaps we should follow Mathematica or Maple.
>
> Blechh. When there's some kind of choice about nonfunctional stuff
> (e.g. notation or names of functions) Mma & Maple have made all kinds
> of questionable choices. Having the same names as them is an extremely
> weak reason. I don't see any need to follow Macsyma either.
I don't care so much about Mma or Maple because we aren't Mma or Maple,
but what's wrong with using Macsyma names? That seems to make sense to
me. That also allows use to use existing Macsyma code. Well, assuming
we implement the same kind of capabilities, which I think we should do
too if possible.
Ray