Closed dbuch closed 2 years ago
Hi.
Really nice with some feedback on naming, I always speculate if it makes sense to others (naming is hard!). And I don’t think Gm
is necessarily a good name, but it was very much on purpose. It is a very special struct that you use a lot, so it was inspired by Rc
and Arc
. Also, it does have a very abstract purpose (combination of any geometry and material) so it doesn’t really have any obvious name. Maybe Object
is a good candidate, but that is already taken by the trait. I also considered Glue
because it glues together a geometry and object. GeometryMaterial
is the obvious long name of Gm
but it should maybe be more like CombinationOfGeometryAndMaterial
which is not exactly nice to read when you use it a lot 😆
So what are your thoughts?
I think you should leave it as-is. I by your Arc/Rc argument.
Hi,
I the distant memory i feel like i did this before? But i did a search and couldn't find it :man_shrugging:
While i'm still reading though your code i keep bumping into this lonely (in terms of naming convention) Gm type. I mean this is the only type that's defined by a short abreviation, no? Anyway I fixed it to match other three-d types.
There should be no functional difference, except i also made use of GeometryMaterial::new() tree wide.