From: Paul T. B. <ptb...@gm...> - 2012-10-29 15:32:19
|
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Roy Stogner <roy...@ic...>wrote: > > You could probably leave it to David or one of the other rbOOmit > people to fix up the reduced_basis internal code. In any case it's > not urgent that library code be *using* the accessors before the next > release, it's just critical that the accessors be available (for > forwards compatibility) and important that the examples be using them > (to encourage new users to do so too). OK, I'll let David handle the rbOOmit parts. And I'll focus on the examples then. 1. The use of "get_" in the names >> > > Ugly, but hard to avoid, since we can't just use the original names > alone for the accessors without breaking backwards compatibility. Yeah, this was the reason I used "get_" in the first place. I'll leave it as is. > 2. overloading get_elem_residual (for example) instead of doing >> get_elem_subresidual. >> > > I'd rather have get_elem_subresidual etc. (less overloading sometimes > means easier debugging and/or more ease adding optional default > arguments if we need to later) but I'd defer to your preference. > I feel obligated to go with your preference since you wrote the original code, but just to mention why I prefer the overload - when I first started, I found residual vs. subresidual a bit confusing (because was there something else special about the subresidual besides it just being specific to the variable? Had to look at the code to find out; obviously I know the answer now). But I could see an argument that such confusion would be cleared up by documentation (which will be added before the patch goes in!). John, David, Vikram, others: any opinions? Not trying to make a mountain out of mole hills, but figure since we'll be breaking compatibility, here's a chance to try and make API as clear as possible. Thanks, Paul |