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
IWorld -> GenView #1133
Comments
Did we want to use the On the case of IWorld currently, it is right where the split between regular Whether we should use The mentions of IWorld's use in world gen is a good argument for why Gen/GenerationView could work, however I feel a name like IntermediaryWorld could work but that also doesn't compensate for the possible world gen context this would be used within. GenerationView or IntermediaryWorld are my two choices but I would like to see some more arguments before a firm decision. |
iapprove |
I like @i509VCB's |
I vote for GenerationView as well. |
Would like to put some steam back into the discussion here. The listed options I've seen mentioned in this issue so far: GenView My opinions on the above: GenerationView and GeneratableWorld both fall in the same category of being much more explicit than GenView IntermediaryWorld is a compromise as not all world types are actually generatable (Client worlds). Some other ideas: PrimativeWorld (assuming we use primative in the sense of a simplistic object), issue I see is the connotation with socital definition of primitive which makes no sense with a type of world |
Closed by #1350 |
A followup of ancient #448. #1098 gives me the idea that interfaces can be named
view
, and this interface is a view for potentially async world generation view, henceGenView
should suffice. Please vote.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: