Re: naming scheme for the GSL package

[Avinoam]

Julien Bect-2 wrote
> Le 20/10/2016 à 08:34, Julien Bect a écrit :
>> Le 20/10/2016 à 06:07, Susi Lehtola a écrit :
>>> On 10/18/2016 01:58 AM, Julien Bect wrote:
>>>> I know, but that is not the question.
>>>>
>>>> If people agree with me that full GSL names are better, I will 
>>>> deprecate
>>>> the old function names but keep them around for some time (perhaps a
>>>> very long time).
>>>>
>>>> By the way, backward compatibility aside, what is your opinion on this
>>>> matter ?
>>>
>>> I guess the consistency with gsl naming is a good argument, although 
>>> I'm not totally sure if it's necessary to keep the whole "gsl_sf_" or 
>>> if just "gsl_" would be better since it's shorter. But then again 
>>> that wouldn't be very logical either, so I guess it's best to keep 
>>> the original gsl function names.
>>
>> Ok.  I will go for the full gsl functions names, then.
>>
>> I wonder if there is a clever way to create function aliases in Octave 
>> : for instance, to have both "clausen" and "gsl_sf_clausen" call the 
>> same function.
>>
>> If not, I will simply create duplicates of the functions that were 
>> there in the 1.08 release during bootstrap.
> 
> Done.  Now full GSL functions are used and displayed in the 
> documentation (but short functions names are still available for 
> functions that were already available in release 1.0.8).
> 
> Because of this change naming scheme, and also because of the long 
> period of unmaintained-ness since 1.0.8, I have decided to increase to 
> version number to 2.0.0.  I hope it's ok.
> 
> I believe that we are now ready for a release...  Anyone wants to test 
> ?   (make dist -> cd target -> pkg install -> pkg load -> gsl_sf_test)
> 
> @++
> Julien


How do I use GSL package in Windows?

Thanks,

Avinoam




--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/naming-scheme-for-the-GSL-package-tp4680116p4680625.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.