[yt-dev] Field naming proposal

Tue Dec 23 13:42:48 PST 2014

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Cameron,
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nathan,
>>
>> Thanks for your hard work on this PR (along with Ben Thompson).  The
>> naming convention that I suggested in the issue a few weeks back (
>> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/947/consistent-field-naming-for-spherical-and)
>> and in the discussion on your PR also matches with past convention.  It is
>> slightly different than what you propose, but seems (to me at least) to be
>> more easy to read because the adjective comes before the noun (e.g.
>> spherical position) instead of the reverse (e.g. position spherical).
>>
>>
> I'm neutral to both of these, in that I am broadly neutral about the
> increasingly nested set of modifiers.  If forced, I think I'd go with your
> proposed convention.
>

That's two votes against my convention (Cameron and Matt).  If no one else
pipes up in favor of my convention in the next day or so, I'll go ahead and
create a YTEP PR and update my PR to match.  This means we need to
deprecate fewer fields, so it's probably simpler in the end...

>
> What would be a lot nicer, in my opinion, would be if we had a way to do
> this more generically.  Like,
>
> with data_object.rotate( ... ):
>     prof1d = create_profile(data_object, "particle_position_x",
> "particle_mass")
>

This is a much nicer syntax.  We should consider this for a future
release.  If someone puts together a prototype for using data objects with
context managers like this, I think we can have a big usability win for a
lot of use cases.

Unfortunately we would probably still need to accept the names with
modifiers for backward compatibility.

>
> and then just get rid of all the nested modified field names.  But I don't
> really think this is feasible.
>
> -Matt
>
>
>> Where proposed naming convention #1 is:
>>
>> (field_type, "<particle?>_<position/velocity>_<coordinate_system>_<coordinate>")
>> e.g. ('all', 'particle_position_spherical_phi')
>>
>> Proposed naming convention #2 is:
>>
>> (field_type, "<particle?>_<coordinate_system
>> >_<position/velocity>_<coordinate>") e.g. ('all',
>> 'particle_spherical_position_phi')
>>
>> Here are all of the relevant gas and particle fields each convention:
>>
>> *Cartesian* (convention #1 & #2 are the same)
>>
>> ('index', 'x')
>> ('index', 'y')
>> ('index', 'z')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_x')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_y')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_z')
>>
>> ('all', 'particle_position_x')
>> ('all', 'particle_position_y')
>> ('all', 'particle_position_z')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_x')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_y')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_z')
>>
>> Convention #1 & #2 differ for the fields of cartesian position relative
>> to the 'center' and 'normal' field parameters for the origin and z-vector:
>>
>> #1 vs #2
>> ('all', 'particle_position_relative_x')  vs. ('all',
>> 'particle_relative_position_x')
>> ('all', 'particle_position_relative_y')  vs. ('all',
>> 'particle_relative_position_y')
>> ('all', 'particle_position_relative_z')  vs. ('all',
>> 'particle_relative_position_z')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_relative_x')  vs. ('all',
>> 'particle_velocity_position_x')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_relative_y')  vs. ('all',
>> 'particle_velocity_position_y')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_relative_z')  vs. ('all',
>> 'particle_velocity_position_z')
>>
>> *Spherical*:
>> #1 vs #2
>>
>> ('index', 'spherical_phi')
>> ('index', 'spherical_radius')
>> ('index', 'spherical_theta')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_spherical_phi') vs      ('gas',
>> 'spherical_velocity_phi')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_spherical_theta') vs   ('gas',
>> 'spherical_velocity_theta')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_spherical_radius') vs ('gas',
>> 'spherical_velocity_radius')
>>
>> ('all', 'particle_position_spherical_phi') vs      ('all',
>> 'particle_spherical_position_phi')
>> ('all', 'particle_position_spherical_theta') vs   ('all',
>> 'particle_spherical_position_theta')
>> ('all', 'particle_position_spherical_radius') vs ('all',
>> 'particle_spherical_position_radius')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_spherical_phi') vs       ('all',
>> 'particle_spherical_velocity_phi')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_spherical_theta') vs    ('all',
>> 'particle_spherical_velocity_theta')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_spherical_radius') vs  ('all',
>> 'particle_spherical_velocity_radius')
>>
>> *Cylindrical*:
>> #1 vs #2
>>
>> ('index', 'cylindrical_phi')
>> ('index', 'cylindrical_radius')
>> ('index', 'cylindrical_theta')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_cylindrical_phi') vs      ('gas',
>> 'cylindrical_velocity_phi')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_cylindrical_theta') vs   ('gas',
>> 'cylindrical_velocity_theta')
>> ('gas', 'velocity_cylindrical_radius') vs ('gas',
>> 'cylindrical_velocity_radius')
>>
>> ('all', 'particle_position_cylindrical_phi') vs      ('all',
>> 'particle_cylindrical_position_phi')
>> ('all', 'particle_position_cylindrical_theta') vs   ('all',
>> 'particle_cylindrical_position_theta')
>> ('all', 'particle_position_cylindrical_radius') vs ('all',
>> 'particle_cylindrical_position_radius')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_cylindrical_phi') vs       ('all',
>> 'particle_cylindrical_velocity_phi')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_cylindrical_theta') vs    ('all',
>> 'particle_cylindrical_velocity_theta')
>> ('all', 'particle_velocity_cylindrical_radius') vs  ('all',
>> 'particle_cylindrical_velocity_radius')
>>
>>
>> So what does the community think would be the best system here?  #1 or
>> #2?  Either way it goes, I think this is a big improvement over the
>> previous naming convention that had general inconsistencies.
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've just issued a pull request that bears some developer discussion.
>>>
>>> Right now yt is a bit of a wild west in terms of the field naming
>>> convention for fields that reference a coordinate system.  See for example,
>>> see issue 947:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/947/consistent-field-naming-for-spherical-and
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose a naming convention for fields that reference a
>>> coordinate system.  Gas and particle fields should be of the form:
>>>
>>> (field_type, "<particle?>_<vector_field_name>_<coordinate>")
>>>
>>> while index fields for coordinates should be of the form:
>>>
>>> ("index", "<coordinate>")
>>>
>>> This fits within our existing field naming convention for cartesian
>>> coordinates, e.g.:
>>>
>>> ("gas", "velocity_x")
>>> (ptype, "particle_velocity_y")
>>>
>>> as well as our convention for index coordinate fields, e.g.:
>>>
>>> ("index", "x")
>>> ("index", "spherical_theta")
>>>
>>> This means that index fields do not need to explicitly reference
>>> themselves as positions.  So we *won't* have field names like:
>>>
>>> ("index", "position_x")
>>>
>>> I don't like the above construction because it's a bit redundant
>>> ("index" implies that we are talking about a position or something similar).
>>>
>>> Some existing field names will need to be changed to fit this.  In
>>> particular, some of the index fields will need to be renamed to be more
>>> verbose ("index", "spherical_r") becomes ("index", "spherical_radius") and
>>> (ptype, "particle_spherical_position_radius") becomes (ptype,
>>> "particle_position_spherical_radius").
>>>
>>> Wherever an existing field name needs to change, I propose we mark the
>>> existing field name for deprecation, stub it out, and make it an alias for
>>> the field with the new field name.  In a future release, we can then remove
>>> the deprecated fields.
>>>
>>> I've implemented this for the particle fields (for the most part) in PR
>>> 1378:
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/pull-request/1378
>>>
>>> I'm happy to update the field naming YTEP if this proposed field naming
>>> scheme gets approval in this thread.
>>>
>>> What do you all think?  Question, concerns?
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Hummels
>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>> Steward Observatory
>> University of Arizona
>> http://chummels.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20141223/a47f724a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org