-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 873
-
Some functions use the same rational functions. For example, erfinv and erfcinv both use the same rational_p1q1, albeit through duplicate auto-generated folders. But besselj uses a totally different yet homonymous rational_p1q1. Shouldn't these homonymous functions be named differently so that factorization could be implemented in a robust fashion in the reference codebase? Or are there complex build-time mechanisms upstream that already take care of this?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
Using different names is unnecessary, as their usage is scoped to the relative module scope. Should these functions need to be present in the same namespace, similar to a C compiler, one can rename symbols when inserting into a common namespace. We do this already when generating "flat" bundles in which all functions exist in the same top-level scope.
Replies: 1 comment
-
Using different names is unnecessary, as their usage is scoped to the relative module scope. Should these functions need to be present in the same namespace, similar to a C compiler, one can rename symbols when inserting into a common namespace. We do this already when generating "flat" bundles in which all functions exist in the same top-level scope.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.