On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On 4 Oct 2014 22:17, "Stéfan van der Walt" <stefan@sun.ac.za> wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014 10:14 PM, "Derek Homeier" <
derek@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
+1 for an order=2 or maxorder=2 flag
If you parameterize that flag, users will want to change its value (above two). Perhaps rather use a boolean flag such as "second_order" or "high_order", unless it seems feasible to include additional orders in the future.
Predicting the future is hard :-). And in particular high_order= would create all kinds of confusion if in the future we added 3rd order approximations but high_order=True continued to mean 2nd order because of compatibility. I like maxorder (or max_order would be more pep8ish I guess) because it leaves our options open. (Similar to how it's often better to have a kwarg that can take two possible string values than to have a boolean kwarg. It makes current code more explicit and makes future enhancements easier.)
I think maxorder is a bit misleading. The both versions are second order in the interior while at the ends the old is first order and the new is second order. Maybe edge_order? Chuck