Nomenclature
#69
Replies: 0 comments
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
{{ message }}
-
The initial idea was to try to keep nomenclature generic, perhaps with the idea that the tool may be used beyond the metallurgy and mineral processing domain. There may be benefits in considering some new names (at the expense of becoming domain specific).
This change may make it easier for new users to understand what the package can do. It would also reduce the occurrence of describing entities by their_name/their_alias in examples and documentation.
Some examples of some potential renaming:
What do you think?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions