Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
  • Iris Iris
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 170
    • Issues 170
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 23
    • Merge requests 23
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Releases
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • Iris
  • IrisIris
  • Issues
  • #409
Closed
Open
Issue created Mar 18, 2021 by Ralf Jung@jungOwner

Proposed change to naming convention for "dataful" `*G`s

Some of our *G typeclasses are different than others: they contain not just inG but actual relevant data; usually a gname but in the case of irisG also some further information about how the Iris program logic is being instantiated. These dataful classes come with a *PreG that represent their inG (dataless) part.

Dataful *Gs need to be treated differently, e.g. they have special initialization lemmas and they should not be bundled in library's *G as that leads to duplication of said data. So I propose to adjust our naming convention such that one can tell from the name whether a *G is dataful or not.

The new naming convention is up for bikeshedding; here are some proposals coming to my mind:

  1. We call the dataful class *DataG and its inG-only part *G. So e.g. heapG → heapDataG and heapPreG → heapG.
  2. We call the dataful class *DataG and its inG-only part *PreG. So e.g. heapG → heapDataG; heapPreG stays.
  3. We call the dataful class *DG and its inG-only part *PreG. So e.g. heapG → heapDG; heapPreG stays.

I think I prefer (2) or (3) over (1) because it prevents confusion due to accidentally using the inG-only part, and also because it is easier for migration since we don't reuse an old name for a different purpose.

@robbertkrebbers @tchajed @jtassaro what do you think?

Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking