mono --> monot about agda-stdlib

[MatthewDaggitt]

Ambiguous with respect to what? I don't see how adding a "t" will help.

All new mono properties in the library should have the order appended to the end of the name (i.e. +-mono-<). Hopefully this will clear it up?

[mechvel]

On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 02:56 -0700, MatthewDaggitt wrote: Ambiguous with respect to what? I don't see how adding a "t" will make it less ambiguous.

I mean a mnemonic ambiguity. The are notions like "monomorhism", "monomial" , mono-this, mono-that ... So, "mono" refers to many notions, while "monot" refers to few notions, I know only "monotonous".

All new mono properties in the library should have the order appended to the end of the name (i.e. +-mono-<). Hopefully this will clear it up?

Generally, uniformity is desirable. Say, <operation of function name> - monot - <ordering symbol>

…

------ Sergei

[MatthewDaggitt]

There are notions like "monomorhism", "monomial" , mono-this, mono-that ...

But none of them are relevant to Data.Nat, I think that context is key. For example there are at least 5 different _+_ defined in the standard library but you know which one you are referring to in each instance by the module imports. Similarly no one is going to think that something of the form +-mono-< refers to monomorphisms or monomials.

Ultimately I think the justification for this change is not strong enough to warrant the backwards compatibility issues it would introduce.

Generally, uniformity is desirable.

I agree. We will try and rename _+-mono_ and _*-mono_ to +-mono-≤ and *-mono-≤ respectively.

[mechvel]

On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 02:51 -0700, MatthewDaggitt wrote: There are notions like "monomorhism", "monomial" , mono-this, mono-that ... But none of them are relevant to Data.Nat, I feel that context is key. For example there are at least 5 different _+_ defined in the standard library but you know which one they refer to by the module imports. Similarly no one is going to think that something of the form +-mono-< refers to monomorphisms or monomials.

Formally, this is so.

Ultimately I think the justification for this change is not strong enough to warrant the backwards compatibility issues it would introduce.

Agda is not currently stable enough to care much for backwards compatibility, the developers admit this. But it needs to care -- a bit. So that I do not care much about this "monot" affair.

…

------ Sergei

Generally, uniformity is desirable. I agree. We will try and rename _+-mono_ and _*-mono_ to +-mono-≤ and *-mono-≤ respectively. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.