← Back to team overview

yade-users team mailing list archive

Re: global renaming?


Bruno Chareyre said:     (by the date of Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:31:47 +0100)

> Well i could like something that denotes base classes, but it needs to 
> define abreviations for each base class and makes the names less readable...
> In fact i like full names :). Abreviations are always more things you 
> have to remember. And I don't think we are going to spell the full names 
> of base classes are we?
> Take this as first impression, perhaps you will decide to do something 
> else and i will like it at the end :).

there are only eight base classes:

  current base class            suggested abbreviation
  GeometricalModel              bgm
  InteractingGeometry           big
  State                         bst
  PhysicalParameters            bpm
  BoundingVolume                bbv

  InteractionGeometry           ig
  InteractionPhysics            ip

  PhysicalAction                pa


- First letter 'b' means Body in the first 5 abbreviations
- class State is still not there yet. But it will be.
- I used CamelCase names so this table will be more familiar to you
- whether small letters, or big letters abbrevations is another
  matter to discuss.

I don't mean to tell the intermediate base class of each class, only
the *root* base class. For example RigidBodyParameters derives from
ParticleParameters, but both of them would have a prefix 'bpm' or
'BPM'. And both of the would then lose postfix 'Parameters' resulting
in a shorter name.

I don't want RigidBodyParameters to have a name with prefix 'Particle' :)

maybe eight abbreviations is not that difficult to remember?

# Janek Kozicki
Yade-users mailing list