Re: Deprecate nfields function?

[Rik]

On 03/01/2014 11:07 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 01:15 PM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>> On 03/01/2014 12:06 PM, Lukas Reichlin wrote:
>>> On 01.03.2014, at 17:21, Rik<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would anyone be heartbroken if we deprecated the nfields function in
>>>> version 4.2?
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm using it in the control package and I think it's a handy
>>> function.
>>
>> I'm indifferent about the shortcut being in the core (it's so short,
>> doesn't seem to hurt), but why nfields() as opposed to numfield() to be
>> more consistent with numel()?
> 
> I suspect nfields is older than numel (a name that was invented by TMW
> because length was already taken and defined in a strange way that is not
> equivalent to numel).  And I just chose nfields because it seemed like a
> good idea the time.  It's easy to look back and say that a past decision
> wasn't perfect.  It's much harder to know whether a decision you make now
> will still seem like a good idea 20 years later...

There was definitely no criticism on my part.  These things do evolve and
it is hard to pick exactly the correct strategy both for today and for 20
years from today.  Do we want to rename nfields to something else
(numfields, numfld, numflds) or remove it entirely?

--Rik