Open paciorek opened 5 months ago
I should also note "AGHQuad_" is used internally.
Sorry that's partly my fault on runAGHQ
as a late addition. I like "AGHQ" without the "uad", but I could be convinced the other way. I agree consistency will be easier in the long run.
Some names like nQuad_
are used so that that can be an internal (member) variable name and thus leave nQuad
available as an argument name. I don't see AGHQuad_
but if it's there I think that kind of reason would be why.
Most of our internal naming of functions/methods and objects is of the form AGHQuad*
. I think it would be ok to leave that and have only user facing be AGHQ, namely buildAGHQ
and runAGHQ
.
Agreed, the topic now is user-facing names.
buildQuad
? AGHQ is of a particular type and the more generic name Quad
for quadrature will allow us to build in other types if of interest?
I think if we added other types, we could then create a buildQuad
as a wrapper. I'm inclined not to do that at this point.
I think it's splitting hairs and agree with buildQuad
big picture but buildLaplace
and buildAGHQ
as a wrapper in the future works just fine. I vote for buildAGHQ
for this release. Remove the uad :)
@perrydv @paul-vdb @weizhangstats We have
buildAGHQuad
butrunAGHQ
andsummaryAGHQ
.I'm somewhat inclined to change to
buildAGHQ
.I think we want to decide on a single naming convention. If we decide today or early tomorrow, we could change for the release. Or we could wait for
nimbleQuad
.