Alessandro Cheli

> My understanding is that PR is aiming to not be breaking downstream. Can you rebase on top of it? The deprecation paths and such would be very good to...

@YingboMa I ended up having to do this. I don't really like it, but it would be OK temporarily. Otherwise tests were failing as it was expecting `Number` in some...

> Thanks for working on this! I have a couple of suggestions that might make reviewing this PR easier: > > 1. **Scope:** Could we focus this PR on migrating...

@ChrisRackauckas @YingboMa @bowenszhu ready for review. I think it'll pass CI

> In the commit [e9ebd8f](https://github.com/JuliaSymbolics/SymbolicUtils.jl/commit/e9ebd8f56fcc0ddfc7c2510cefd55581f125df9b), you replaced all instances of `arguments` with `sorted_arguments`, which was not fully addressed in the subsequent merge commit [bfb672d](https://github.com/JuliaSymbolics/SymbolicUtils.jl/commit/bfb672d444ce8111569be26d8366654635fbc4a6). The intention behind updating `arguments` was...

> Yes that PR already went one by one to make the choices so just match that I went to the PRs side by side and reverted the non-fundamental `sorted_arguments`....

Ready for review again

@ChrisRackauckas @bowenszhu any news for this PR?

> In the commit [e9ebd8f](https://github.com/JuliaSymbolics/SymbolicUtils.jl/commit/e9ebd8f56fcc0ddfc7c2510cefd55581f125df9b), you replaced all instances of `arguments` with `sorted_arguments`, which was not fully addressed in the subsequent merge commit [bfb672d](https://github.com/JuliaSymbolics/SymbolicUtils.jl/commit/bfb672d444ce8111569be26d8366654635fbc4a6). The intention behind updating `arguments` was...

Hey guys @ChrisRackauckas @bowenszhu ping