[seqfan] Re: Rant on Maple code

David Wilson dwilson at gambitcomm.com
Thu Aug 13 19:29:29 CEST 2009

But more importantly

The Wiki should have a place where the editors can discuss, agree on, 
and improve OEIS standards (such as they are).

One example might be a glossary page where preferred symbols in OEIS 
sequences are listed, e.g:

a(n)	nth element of current sequence.


		%F A000000 a(n) = 2^n + 3^n

n	1. Index of current sequence element


		%F A000000 a(n) = 2^n + 3^n

	2. Element of current sequence


		%N A000000 n^2+1 is prime

g(x)	Generating function of current sequence

It's easier to agree on and conform to conventions that are written down.

Robert G. Wilson, v wrote:
> SeqFans,
>    The hierarchy of programming.
> 1. It must be accurate.
> 2. It should be efficient (both in computer resources and time)
> 3. Readable. Please no spaghetti coding.
>  For me when all of the above occurs the coding is 'elegant'.
>  I also try hard to label functions which are useful in several other sequences 
> with unique descriptive titles. As an example, before Mathematica had as a built 
> in function, nextPrim[n_]. In this way someone who was following me could cut and 
> paste this function into their coding and thereby the OEIS would be internally 
> consistent.
>  With consistency for the OEIS in mind, the generating function if not named 
> should be the f(n) with helping functions of g(), h(), etc. If the sequence is 
> recursive, then a(n) and not f(n) is useful.
> Bob.

More information about the SeqFan mailing list