-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Do we need a discretisation class #17
Comments
I'm in favour of keeping it. Because, in no particular order
Please correct me where I'm wrong. |
This is clearly a matter of taste and scale :-). Taking your points one by one:
But think for a moment about how the UML for this will look in terms of documentation: we will get Wouldn't it be better to rename the sub_process type? |
Ok. I agree that this is subjective :) On renaming |
I agree ... "distinct chunk" ... of "thing" ... but what to call it :-)? |
Google defines component: a part or element of a larger whole ... We could reuse |
I'd thought of |
The discretisation class is defined like this:
It seems redundant, being just a way of renaming a
sub_process
... is that really necessary, the property name and definition give enough context for that don't they?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: