I'm working in a PR on moving some deepchem code over (the parent DeepChem PR won't be merged in until after DeepChem 2.4 release).
As I'm going through the code, I think we have an opportunity to rethink some old DeepChem design descisions. In particular, I propose we rename some module as follows:
deepchem.feat -> moleculenet.featurizers
deepchem.splits -> moleculenet.splitters
deepchem.trans -> moleculenet.transformers
The original names were chosen to be short for ease of import, but with time I think this earlier decision was a mistake. It means that newcomers have to learn new shortened words rather than the natural module name.
What do folks think? CC @peastman @VIGS25 @lilleswing @miaecle
I'm working in a PR on moving some deepchem code over (the parent DeepChem PR won't be merged in until after DeepChem 2.4 release).
As I'm going through the code, I think we have an opportunity to rethink some old DeepChem design descisions. In particular, I propose we rename some module as follows:
deepchem.feat
->moleculenet.featurizers
deepchem.splits
->moleculenet.splitters
deepchem.trans
->moleculenet.transformers
The original names were chosen to be short for ease of import, but with time I think this earlier decision was a mistake. It means that newcomers have to learn new shortened words rather than the natural module name.
What do folks think? CC @peastman @VIGS25 @lilleswing @miaecle