[seqfan] Re: Changing sequences without asking authors

Alexander P-sky apovolot at gmail.com
Sun Nov 28 15:20:43 CET 2010


Maintaining the file "modified.txt" (in addition to restoring file
"recent.txt") would help to spot issues like this.
Also would it be better to use keyword "modified" for the cases of
edited sequences, similar to such (instead of using keyword "new") for
edited sequences (proposed here by me to be captured in the file
"modified.txt"), while keeping  keyword "new" to be applied only to
"brand new" sequences" (proposed here by me to be captured in the
restored file "recent.txt") ?
Also would it be helpful if when editing of sequence is "proposed",
then OEIS would automatically issue the notification email to the
author of the sequence ?

ARP

On 11/28/10, N. J. A. Sloane <njas at research.att.com> wrote:
>> I noticed that some of the editors completely changed the terms in
>> some older sequences when they were unable to understand the definition.
> This should certainly not happen!
> My philosophy has always been that the terms of the sequence
> are the most important thing.
> Neil




More information about the SeqFan mailing list