Re: [yt-dev] Field naming proposal

I think both conventions are good, but I slightly prefer #1 (Nathan's naming) for being closer to what is done for Cartesian vector fields. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:

Hi all,

Since this is one of the blockers for 3.1, I'd like to bump this thread. It looks like we're now at 3 votes for my proposal and 2 votes for Cameron's proposal.

It would be great if a few more people could weigh in. Take a look at Cameron's e-mail near the top of this thread if you need a reminder.

-Nathan

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Ben Thompson wrote:

...

Hey all.

Nathan, thank you for setting this up, Cameron thank you for clearly outlining the naming conventions, and sorry to you all if I have been a bit quiet recently.

I am for option #1 which to me feels a bit more natural to go particle -> vector field -> coordinate system -> coordinate

As Britton has said, it would be best to finalise a decision in the new year (maybe at the end of the first full week? say the 8th?).

This PR in question also corrects numerical computation in the particle_spherical co-ordinate system too as well as updatin the field naming YTEP, so is also important to get out in it's own right.

Ben

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Sam Skillman wrote:

...

Hi all, I agree with Britton here that it would be good to table this until folks have time to read through this carefully. Thanks, Sam

On Tue Dec 23 2014 at 2:40:41 PM Britton Smith wrote:

...

I choose option #1.

Also, let's not be too quick to make big decisions here. Many people are on break right now and so are unavailable, or are wanting to be.

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum

...

wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...

Hi Cameron,

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

> Hi Nathan, > > Thanks for your hard work on this PR (along with Ben Thompson). The > naming convention that I suggested in the issue a few weeks back ( > https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/947/consistent-field-naming-for-s...) > and in the discussion on your PR also matches with past convention. It is > slightly different than what you propose, but seems (to me at least) to be > more easy to read because the adjective comes before the noun (e.g. > spherical position) instead of the reverse (e.g. position spherical). > > I'm neutral to both of these, in that I am broadly neutral about the increasingly nested set of modifiers. If forced, I think I'd go with your proposed convention.

That's two votes against my convention (Cameron and Matt). If no one else pipes up in favor of my convention in the next day or so, I'll go ahead and create a YTEP PR and update my PR to match. This means we need to deprecate fewer fields, so it's probably simpler in the end...

...

What would be a lot nicer, in my opinion, would be if we had a way to do this more generically. Like,

with data_object.rotate( ... ): prof1d = create_profile(data_object, "particle_position_x", "particle_mass")

This is a much nicer syntax. We should consider this for a future release. If someone puts together a prototype for using data objects with context managers like this, I think we can have a big usability win for a lot of use cases.

Unfortunately we would probably still need to accept the names with modifiers for backward compatibility.

...

and then just get rid of all the nested modified field names. But I don't really think this is feasible.

-Matt

> Where proposed naming convention #1 is: > > (field_type, "___<coordinate>") > e.g. ('all', 'particle_position_spherical_phi') > > Proposed naming convention #2 is: > > (field_type, "_ >__<coordinate>") e.g. ('all', > 'particle_spherical_position_phi') > > Here are all of the relevant gas and particle fields each convention: > > *Cartesian* (convention #1 & #2 are the same) > > ('index', 'x') > ('index', 'y') > ('index', 'z') > ('gas', 'velocity_x') > ('gas', 'velocity_y') > ('gas', 'velocity_z') > > ('all', 'particle_position_x') > ('all', 'particle_position_y') > ('all', 'particle_position_z') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_x') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_y') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_z') > > Convention #1 & #2 differ for the fields of cartesian position > relative to the 'center' and 'normal' field parameters for the origin and > z-vector: > > #1 vs #2 > ('all', 'particle_position_relative_x') vs. ('all', > 'particle_relative_position_x') > ('all', 'particle_position_relative_y') vs. ('all', > 'particle_relative_position_y') > ('all', 'particle_position_relative_z') vs. ('all', > 'particle_relative_position_z') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_relative_x') vs. ('all', > 'particle_velocity_position_x') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_relative_y') vs. ('all', > 'particle_velocity_position_y') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_relative_z') vs. ('all', > 'particle_velocity_position_z') > > *Spherical*: > #1 vs #2 > > ('index', 'spherical_phi') > ('index', 'spherical_radius') > ('index', 'spherical_theta') > ('gas', 'velocity_spherical_phi') vs ('gas', > 'spherical_velocity_phi') > ('gas', 'velocity_spherical_theta') vs ('gas', > 'spherical_velocity_theta') > ('gas', 'velocity_spherical_radius') vs ('gas', > 'spherical_velocity_radius') > > ('all', 'particle_position_spherical_phi') vs ('all', > 'particle_spherical_position_phi') > ('all', 'particle_position_spherical_theta') vs ('all', > 'particle_spherical_position_theta') > ('all', 'particle_position_spherical_radius') vs ('all', > 'particle_spherical_position_radius') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_spherical_phi') vs ('all', > 'particle_spherical_velocity_phi') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_spherical_theta') vs ('all', > 'particle_spherical_velocity_theta') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_spherical_radius') vs ('all', > 'particle_spherical_velocity_radius') > > *Cylindrical*: > #1 vs #2 > > ('index', 'cylindrical_phi') > ('index', 'cylindrical_radius') > ('index', 'cylindrical_theta') > ('gas', 'velocity_cylindrical_phi') vs ('gas', > 'cylindrical_velocity_phi') > ('gas', 'velocity_cylindrical_theta') vs ('gas', > 'cylindrical_velocity_theta') > ('gas', 'velocity_cylindrical_radius') vs ('gas', > 'cylindrical_velocity_radius') > > ('all', 'particle_position_cylindrical_phi') vs ('all', > 'particle_cylindrical_position_phi') > ('all', 'particle_position_cylindrical_theta') vs ('all', > 'particle_cylindrical_position_theta') > ('all', 'particle_position_cylindrical_radius') vs ('all', > 'particle_cylindrical_position_radius') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_cylindrical_phi') vs ('all', > 'particle_cylindrical_velocity_phi') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_cylindrical_theta') vs ('all', > 'particle_cylindrical_velocity_theta') > ('all', 'particle_velocity_cylindrical_radius') vs ('all', > 'particle_cylindrical_velocity_radius') > > > So what does the community think would be the best system here? #1 > or #2? Either way it goes, I think this is a big improvement over the > previous naming convention that had general inconsistencies. > > Cameron > > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've just issued a pull request that bears some developer >> discussion. >> >> Right now yt is a bit of a wild west in terms of the field naming >> convention for fields that reference a coordinate system. See for example, >> see issue 947: >> >> >> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/947/consistent-field-naming-for-s... >> >> I'd like to propose a naming convention for fields that reference a >> coordinate system. Gas and particle fields should be of the form: >> >> (field_type, "__<coordinate>") >> >> while index fields for coordinates should be of the form: >> >> ("index", "<coordinate>") >> >> This fits within our existing field naming convention for cartesian >> coordinates, e.g.: >> >> ("gas", "velocity_x") >> (ptype, "particle_velocity_y") >> >> as well as our convention for index coordinate fields, e.g.: >> >> ("index", "x") >> ("index", "spherical_theta") >> >> This means that index fields do not need to explicitly reference >> themselves as positions. So we *won't* have field names like: >> >> ("index", "position_x") >> >> I don't like the above construction because it's a bit redundant >> ("index" implies that we are talking about a position or something similar). >> >> Some existing field names will need to be changed to fit this. In >> particular, some of the index fields will need to be renamed to be more >> verbose ("index", "spherical_r") becomes ("index", "spherical_radius") and >> (ptype, "particle_spherical_position_radius") becomes (ptype, >> "particle_position_spherical_radius"). >> >> Wherever an existing field name needs to change, I propose we mark >> the existing field name for deprecation, stub it out, and make it an alias >> for the field with the new field name. In a future release, we can then >> remove the deprecated fields. >> >> I've implemented this for the particle fields (for the most part) >> in PR 1378: >> >> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/pull-request/1378 >> >> I'm happy to update the field naming YTEP if this proposed field >> naming scheme gets approval in this thread. >> >> What do you all think? Question, concerns? >> >> -Nathan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> >> > > > -- > Cameron Hummels > Postdoctoral Researcher > Steward Observatory > University of Arizona > http://chummels.org > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org