[yt-dev] Field naming proposal

[Michael Zingale]

Matt had a proposal to support general grids, and somewhere inbetween that
and what yt does now are logical Cartesian curvilinear / quadralaterial
grids (some people use eta and xi for the coordinate names in 2-d for
these).  Should those types of grids be address in the field naming
proposal or Matt's unstructured proposal (technically, these are
structured, but ...)

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 2:01 PM, 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
>
>


-- 
Michael Zingale
Associate Professor

Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY
11794-3800
*phone*:  631-632-8225
*e-mail*: Michael.Zingale at stonybrook.edu
*web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20141223/b991621c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org