Renaming limiters to setpoints #84
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
At a quick glance I think setpoints looks fine. |
|
@longzheng OK I feel like this is "done" as a first step Note: I haven't renamed the terminology |
…/open-dynamic-export into pr/84
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
ref #68 (comment)
@longzheng after going through the progress so far, I'm not 100% sure I like the idea of a blanket rename of
limiterstosetpointswhat do you think? read over the diff's and tell me what you think :) (especially thedocsfiles)I'm wondering if we actually need to have
limitersandsetpointsas independent/separate functionality? thoughts?more from a UX/common sense perspective, we may decide to use the same logic under the hood for both still depending how things play out?