>
When function names are related to what they do, they are easier to
remember. Also, functions with similar functionality, with similar
words are easier to remember. random_real(), random_integer() are
much better choice than rand(), ranint() for instance (imo :)). So
I'm in favour of subst_parallel. Thats my view of the matter.
While discousing Maxima function names, I think Maxima functions
should follow mathematical notation if possible. Functions with
"programmer" names: atan, asin, atan2 ... should be named arcsin,
arctan, arctan(x,y)... since this is the usual mathematical notation.
Also realpart and imagpart could be named "Re" and "Im", which is
shorter and "correct" in mathematical sense (at least where I live).
I know that changing function names creates a lot of problems, so I
don't expect such changes will be implemented soon (or are in
everyone's current interest). Maybe with the next major version
(maxima 6), names could be "corrected", while having aliases for the
old names so as not to break existing maxima programs.
Ziga
> I didn't say it was the best reason. However:
> If 1% of the users already know the name sublis from common lisp, but
> 0% of the users have seen the name-you-just-made-up-for-sublis, then
> there is
> an infinite advantage in familiarity in using the name from common
> lisp. :)
>
> Either one could be explained in the documentation and cross
> referenced
> etc etc.