[12:15:57] Is there a recommended practice for naming implementations? [12:16:56] I can't find something like this on https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:How_to_create_implementations [12:17:25] For some simpler cases, it's just something like "Python implementation for _functon name_". [12:17:54] I can imagine that in the future there will be different versions of the programming language, but it doesn't make a big difference. [12:18:42] It may make a difference if someone wants a different algorithm perhaps. [12:18:48] The current practice is to have the name of the function, the name of the language (or composition) and if needed some details about the implementation (only happens if there is more than one implementation in a certain language) [12:19:16] Is it documented in writing? [12:19:33] Not that I know of [12:19:38] In English, we tend to go for followed by programming language or “composition”. [12:21:09] All we have is https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Naming_conventions#Implementation_names (re @amire80: Is it documented in writing?) [12:22:26] See also *T373735* (re @amire80: Is it documented in writing?) [12:23:31] OK. The reason I'm thinking about it is that I made one function till now, and it has a longish name, and if I try to give the implementation a name that has the function and the programming language, it becomes too long. [12:24:15] But this makes me think - could they have some automatic default names? [12:34:38] Yes, but if we get *T373735 *we might choose a different way of naming 🤷‍♂️ (re @amire80: But this makes me think - could they have some automatic default names?) [12:36:06] Is it just me or is "(etc)" doing a lot of work there? :) [12:39:56] Yes. But we should expect that one or two technical solutions will be appropriate for all contexts. Please feel free to extend… (re @amire80: Is it just me or is "(etc)" doing a lot of work there? :))