#86 closed task (rejected)
Rename formal variable name Point
| Reported by: | abeham | Owned by: | abeham |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | HeuristicLab 3.3.0 |
| Component: | ZZZ OBSOLETE: TestFunctions | Version: | 3.0 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | gkronber |
Description
The (Rastrigin|Schwefel|Ackley|...) evaluators will most likely be coupled with operators from RealVector which inject and work on a variable called "RealVector" per default. The evaluators however expect a variable called "Point". It would be good to change the formal name to be RealVector as well.
Change History (7)
comment:1 Changed 17 years ago by swagner
- Cc gkronber added
comment:2 Changed 17 years ago by abeham
You're absolutely right. Generally there can be multiple representations for a problem. Still the operators are written such that only RealVector (or another representation that builds on DoubleArrayData) is possible. That's why I suggested to name it RealVector flat.
comment:3 Changed 17 years ago by abeham
- Owner changed from swagner to abeham
- Status changed from new to assigned
comment:4 Changed 17 years ago by abeham
- Resolution set to wontfix
- Status changed from assigned to closed
After some discussion with Stefan, the distinction between the variable name and the underlying data representation is necessary to prevent the impression of a false correlation, similar to what Gabriel suggested.
comment:5 Changed 16 years ago by swagner
- Milestone changed from 3.0 to Iteration 0
Milestone 3.0 deleted
comment:6 Changed 14 years ago by swagner
- Milestone changed from Iteration 0 to Current
Milestone Iteration 0 deleted
comment:11 Changed 14 years ago by swagner
- Milestone changed from Current to HeuristicLab 3.3.0
Milestone Current deleted
Hm, to be honest I'm not quite sure about that. In my opinion we should not start mixing terms from a problem domain with those from a solution representation domain. The TestFunctions plugin represents a problem that can be attacked using various solution representations. One of them is RealVector of course, but not the only one. I don't think it is a good idea to rename the input variable Point in TestFunctionEvaluatorBase to RealVector because this would suggest a strong coupling between the TestFunctions and the RealVector plugin which does not exist.
What do you think? Comments?