Closed JoshPaterson closed 2 years ago
@brandon-rhodes can you point me to a skyfield object whose docstring format is a good model to follow? I'm having trouble getting the doctest to pass. Thanks!
I believe OsculatingElements.init() is the last place in the public api using 'mu' in a parameter name, is there a way to deprecate this without breaking backwards compatibility?
Alas, no, I think that's now fixed. But maybe we can deprecate that class at some point? I remember our discussing whether there should be a reworking of the way that orbits relate to elements, but I don't remember what we were thinking of doing. I should return to that conversation soon when I have time.
Oh yeah, that's right, we did discuss deprecating the OsculatingElements object in #481, hopefully I will have some time to work on that this winter!
Also, thanks for the detailed feedback, I learn a lot from you when I contribute to Skyfield, which is part of why I enjoy doing so!
Also, thanks for the detailed feedback, I learn a lot from you when I contribute to Skyfield, which is part of why I enjoy doing so!
Well, thank you for being such a good sport about it :)
[Edit: removed paragraph in which I expressed confusion about why the body's own mass isn't needed but only the sum of the two masses; after more thought, I've answered my own question.]
osculating_elements_of()
skyfield.data.gravitational_parameters.GM_dict
. This is calculated by summing all of the masses inGM_dict
that aren't barycenters.osculating_elements_of()
. I named this argumentgm_km3_s2
to match the arguments @brandon-rhodes used indata.mpc.py
. Most places in skyfield usegm_km3_s2
as the argument name and I think that's the best and most explicit option. I believeOsculatingElements.__init__()
is the last place in the public api using 'mu' in a parameter name, is there a way to deprecate this without breaking backwards compatibility?osculating_elements_of
more informative