Open martclanor opened 2 months ago
@martclanor
I think the difference in patterning comes from multiple people developing the code and not specifying a formal convention for MF
vs. Mf
prefix. I'm personally partial to Mf
over MF
, but I'd like to hear what others think prior to making any changes to the mf6
naming conventions.
Echoing @jlarsen-usgs's call for comments here, so we can pick a convention and stick to it for the next major version release.
One thought: maybe we don't even need a prefix? These classes will be in the flopy.mf6
module already. The user could alias to disambiguate if needed.
@wpbonelli, I like your idea to remove the prefix. We might even build on that further for the mf6 packages. We could probably rethink the name space to better accommodate ModflowGwfevt
, for example.
This concerns all class names prefixed with
MF
orMf
.While poking around, I tried using
MFSimulationList
class, but that apparently doesn't exist because it is instead calledMfSimulationList
which I thought is a bit unexpected. So I checked to see whereMF
orMf
is used as a prefix and it seems like there is a pattern, but just almost.Within
flopy/mf6
, everything is usingMF
(e.g.MFDataException
,MFBlock
,MFTransient
, etc.), except forMfGrdFile
,MfSimulationList
andMf6Splitter
. Elsewhere,Mf
is used (e.g. as found inflopy/mfusg
andflopy/utils
:MfUsg
,MfList
,Mf6Obs
, etc.).My questions:
flopy/mf6
withMF
?