documentation; What name for our package?

[Boud Roukema]

Cze¶æ wszystkim,
   I am very glad that several of you (at least three people) have had
the courage to tell me that I have to do some work (in documenting the
software), otherwise we will not get anywhere in our "monograph course"!
This a good sign for learning how to work together :).

So, I'm about to start preparing some documentation. My plan is
to follow the PGPLOT style documentation which was used for the ArFus
galaxy formation package:

http://darc3.obspm.fr/~roukema/ArFus/index.html

(You can download a *local* copy of the full package, including small
example N-body simulations here - total size 31Mb:
http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/~boud/ArFus_tar/ArFus-V0.03.tar.gz )

Question: what name do we want to call our package?  I think the
name should not be too long, and it would be good to have a two-letter
abbreviation to put in the subroutine (module) names, like "PG" for
pgplot, "AF" for ArFus.

Some ideas with comments + for - against ...

ShapeUniv  - SU
+ easy to say
- confusion with SU groups of superstring theory?
- confusion with Soviet Union?

DarkEnergy - DE
+ easy to say
- confusion with the name of a neighbouring country?

FormaWszech¶wiata - FW
- confusion with "forward" in emails
- difficult to say "FW..." for the name of a subroutine
- includes a non-latin-1 character

ObservCosm - OC
- pretentious (claims to cover all of observational cosmology)

TorunCosm - TC
+ maybe the best?
- confusion with TCP/IP?

QuintEssence - QE
- confusion with Queen Elizabeth?

CosmParameters - CP
--- confusion with Communist Party

KoperNik - KN
- too many things are called Copernicus in Toruñ & Poland
- pretentious?

Well, I've spent enough time on this, I'm sure others have some
ideas.  I'll put "DE" for the moment - we can change this later
with a shell script depending on what people choose.

Na ra¿
Boud