-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Unify S3 class design principles with {contactmatrix} #364
Comments
Question on class standards: When should a element of a class be required versus optional? In {epiparameter} this relates to the list elements of an More generally this question could be applied to a class based on a list, or another non-atomic object, or an atomic object using attributes. |
From the recent {contactmatrix} dev day I become a bit more familiar with the codebase. The two packages are well aligned from a design perspective. One remaining minor difference is the class name for a dedicated class for a list of objects, Is it worth renaming one of these so they are consistent, e.g. @Bisaloo what do you think? |
It makes sense from a conceptual point of view but I'd only do it if it's an easy lift. I'm still slightly unsure which class name makes more sense 🤔
(Note that this misses cases where class is not set by |
The {contactmatrix} R package aims to unify the underlying data structure used by packages that use contact matrices. {epiparameter} aims to do some very similar with its
<epiparameter>
class (previously<epidist>
). Therefore, as these two projects have overlap in their development teams, it makes sense to align their design principles as much as possible.This issue will track those developments.
Tagging @Bisaloo.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: