dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 05:26:53PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>> > One option could be to rename mesh classes to UnitSquareMesh,
>> > UnitCubeMesh, and keep deprecated (sub)classes UnitSquare, UnitCube
>> > indefinitely to keep backwards compatibility.
>> >
>>
>> No point in renaming if the deprecated names are to be kept indefinitely.
>>
>> > In summary, I would like to add the new classes to namespace dolfin
>> > but I'm looking for opinions on how to best handle naming conflicts.
>> >
>>
>> I'm always in favour of a consistent, meaningful interface over a
>> sub-optimal interface for the purpose of backward compatibility.
>
> So what are our options?
>
> The actual name clashes are between Rectangle/Rectangle and Box/Box (+
> maybe some more that I'm overlooking).
>
> We could suffix everything:
>
>   RectangleGeometry
>   RectangleMesh
>
> or
>
>   RectangleShape
>   RectangleMesh
>
> to keep it shorter.
>
> One could argue that the suffix is only nedded for the meshes, since a
> Rectangle(Geometry) is really a rectangle, whereas the RectangleMesh
> is not a rectangle; it's a mesh of a rectangle.
>

I would prefer the suffix only for the meshes, e.g.,

   Rectangle
   RectangleMesh

Garth


> If we suffix all mesh classes with Mesh for consistently, we should
> keep UnitSquare and UnitCube around with deprecation warnings for some
> time (a limited time but not indefinite) since they are heavily used
> in tutorials, demos, the book etc.
>
> --
> Anders