On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> 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 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
