Subject: interface for numerical integration, roots etc
From: Raymond Toy
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 16:26:07 -0400
On 5/26/10 3:03 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> I agree that having a named-argument convention would be a good thing,
> but think it would be a bad idea to overload equation syntax for named
> arguments.
>
> I rather like using => or -> to notate mappings, whether in argument
> lists or in structured objects.
>
I kind of like a = b for maxima keyword arguments. a -> b always make
me think that a approaches b (this is math, after all) and a => b means
a is greater than or equal to b or a implies b. Perhaps => is better?
I won't oppose changing the convention, but if we do, please be sure to
change the existing functions that already use the = convention. (I
think the qags* functions and run_testsuite do this. The Minpack share
package uses this too. There might be others.)
Ray