It's all fine provided that you keep it backward-compatible. Else it's
worst than the initial pb in my view.
Cheers
Bruno
Le mer. 29 avr. 2020 09:37, Jerome Duriez a écrit :
> Thanks for feedback, what about just a change in name: gravWork ->
> gravPotential ?
>
> There would be no more doubts
Thanks for feedback, what about just a change in name: gravWork ->
gravPotential ?
There would be no more doubts whether it is work by gravity or work
against gravity ; and decrease of that quantity during a fall would seem
more logical to me (and others ?)
I agree otherwise with your
Hi Jérôme,
I feel like it is a question of perspective, and undecidable overall.
Is it work by gravity or work against gravity? You can find the two
meanings easily. It's still a work in both cases.
OTOH it seems these energies are underdocumented overall. I did not find a
list of available
I now think the most logical would be to keep this expression with a
minus sign [*], but rename 'gravWork' into 'gravPotential' (like we have
'elastPotential').
It would reconcile for me the name with the coded expression, and be
more logical with the existence of O.energy.total() function
4 matches
Mail list logo
