[yt-dev] prettying up the field list

Cameron Hummels chummels at gmail.com
Tue Nov 25 20:41:09 PST 2014


I'm +1 on this idea in general, and if you can manage the suggestion that
Nathan made about auto-generating the file with the docs build than that is
great too.  One clarification though: Are you planning to leave the
Universal Fields (eg many of the derived fields) the way they are, or
change them too?  I think you could switch them to the same format that you
propose, but it might be worthwhile to have a link to the source code
defining those fields if you do.  I like that we give people the source on
the derived fields here, and I'd hate to give that up.

Cameron

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Michael Zingale <
> michael.zingale at stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>
>> I've been looking over the field list:
>>
>> http://yt-project.org/docs/dev/reference/field_list.html#field-list
>>
>> At the bottom of that page, we list the fields specific to each
>> frontend/code.  I'd like to make the presentation for each frontend a
>> table, with columns for the name, units, what its aliases to, and whether
>> it is a particle -- these are what we currently list, and perhaps show the
>> display name.  Showing it as a table for each frontend would be more
>> compact than the list, and I think it would be clearer for people to read.
>> Before I hack the script that writes that page, I wanted to see if there
>> are any objections.
>>
>
> +1
>
> While you're at it, it would be great if that page was autogenerated as
> part of the docs build. To get that to work, you will need to create a
> sphinx extension that calls the script and writes the field list page.
> Right now the script is not called as part of the docs build, so any
> changes made to the script need to be accompanied by a manual change to the
> field list page.
>
>
>>
>> Also, a minor point, there is a _dynamical_time() field which I assume is
>> the free-fall timescale assuming uniform density throughout the collapse.
>> I've always seen a '32' not '16' in the denominator (see, e.g. Carroll &
>> Ostlie, Eq. 12.26 or Kippenhahn & Weigert Eq. 27.10)
>>
>
> I agree that 32 is more commonly used. It looks like it's been 16 for
> quite a long time, the reasons why it's set that way might be lost to the
> mists of time. I'd be +1 for changing it to be more in line with standard
> nomenclature.
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20141125/53d62fe1/attachment.htm>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list