[yt-dev] Field naming proposal

Tue Dec 23 14:37:44 PST 2014

I choose option #1.

Also, let's not be too quick to make big decisions here.  Many people are
on break right now and so are unavailable, or are wanting to be.

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141223/521c8ec8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org