otizonaizit
commented
1 month ago Yes, it's worth talking about it an maybe find a better name. The good thing about graph is that it helps understanding that it is a special thing which comes from networkx and that you can apply graph's algorithms on, like for example shortest_path. This alone in my opinion would discourage naming it path or way, because those are actually most probably the result of applying shortest path on the graph to get exactly that: a way or a path towards something. A group this semester at the TU even copied the graph and modified it to remove "dangerous" coordinates from it, so that they could use shortest_path on it in a safe way. I think it is important that the names conveys the "speciality" of the thing.
About the other names:
Given that bot.walls and bot.food are sequences, it would be confusing having bot.free to be something completely different (and also confusing because of "is a square free if it contains food or a bot sits on it?"-type of questions). Bot.squares is more generic, but you would still be a surprise that it is not just a list of coordinates...
So maybe bot.maze_graph or bot.maze?
On Wed 17 Jul, 07:59 +0000, Rike-Benjamin Schuppner @.***> wrote:
I suggest we rename
Bot.graphthat was introduced in #792¹ to something that mirrors its purpose and contents better instead of giving it a name that merely reflects its data type. :)
Bot.path,Bot.way,Bot.free,Bot.squares?— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub², or unsubscribe³. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.☘Message ID: @.***>
––––
¹ https://github.com/ASPP/pelita/pull/792 ² https://github.com/ASPP/pelita/issues/808 ³ https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACUYC5CUCTU5S3LU44QUODZM2BELAVCNFSM6AAAAABLA2INDKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGQYTGOBVGQ2DKNY
I suggest we rename
Bot.graphthat was introduced in #792 to something that mirrors its purpose and contents better instead of giving it a name that merely reflects its data type. :)Bot.path,Bot.way,Bot.free,Bot.squares?