readability exchanges in glofrim ini file

[DirkEilander]

Right now the exchange section reads like equations in which case it makes more sense to turn the 'to_model' and 'from_model' around. Instead it is meant as a “flow-chart”, so from_model -> to_model. This setup is consistent with the wflow bmi_runner.py script.

The readability of the glofrim ini script would improve if we change the delimiter from ‘=’ to ‘->’ to indicate the direction of flow of data explicitly.

[JannisHoch]

@DirkEilander As much as I understand Hiroaki's comment, I never had any problems following the "flow-chart" way of defining the exchanges. But I was wondering to which extent is your comment here an issue or is it a proposition to change the delimiter from '=' to '->'? If so, I would decline it as in my opinion the '=' sign is much more common than '->' in programming, mathematics, etc. I would stick to the current set-up, close this issue, and wait whether any future feedback will prove us wrong.

[DirkEilander]

The '=' sign is more common but not necessary to define a flow of data. We could also allow for both signs but that might make it only more complicated. I like your practical point of view to leave it as is and see if we are proven wrong in the future. Maybe it's more than anything just a matter of good documentation. What do you think @hii600 ?

[JannisHoch]

I think allowing for both will lead to more confusion than clarity - think we should not give too much freedom to the end-user... and yes, good documentation is key :) but see what @hii600 says!

[hii600]

@DirkEilander @ChippChapp OK I agree with your take on and let's keep the '=' sign as it is!

[JannisHoch]

alrigtht, one issue less!