search

brisvag / blik

Python tool for visualising and interacting with cryo-ET and subtomogram averaging data.
https://brisvag.github.io/blik/
GNU General Public License v3.0
23 stars 8 forks source link

'Alchemist' renaming proposal #73

Closed alisterburt closed 3 years ago

alisterburt commented 3 years ago

I'm not convinced by the name Alchemist for something which takes blocks and makes new blocks... I don't think it's sufficiently descriptive, what're your thoughts?

I think I prefer something which conveys the operation/operator aspect, so something like BlockOperator is my first idea?

brisvag commented 3 years ago

I was just thinking the same! I'm gonna think about it a bit more, but Operator seems good!

brisvag commented 3 years ago

I'm changing my mind a bit on this: Referencing to an operator is very generic, which can lead to confusion in the code (does this variable called operator refer to a BlockOperator object, or a mathematical operator, or...?). On the other hand, Alchemist is not something that can be mixed up. Not saying it's a good name, just that operator is a bit too vague!

alisterburt commented 3 years ago

I see what you mean but it's only a problem if all of the Operators include the name Operator which I'm not convinced is necessary (we had the same discussion about the different block types, although there I agree that they should probably keep Block in the name.

I think with alchemists the pattern would probably be to name them for what they do, Transformation, ShiftAlongVector or whatever it might be. What do you reckon?

Although based on this, having the base class be called alchemist is also fine I guess? Still less obvious though I think

brisvag commented 3 years ago

Yeah I see what you mean... but I guess if we don't keep the base name in the classes then it's fine. Transformation and ShiftAlongVector are quite clear, actually.

brisvag commented 3 years ago

Closing this, since with #91 we removed this code.