hessb at mpip-mainz.mpg.de
Thu Jul 20 10:32:34 CEST 2006
Mark Abraham wrote:
> Berk Hess wrote:
>> Mark Abraham wrote:
>>> Can we make an effort to standardize the spelling of neighbo[u]r for
>>> 4.0...? I don't care what it is, but it seems silly to have
>>> search_neighbours and init_neighbor_list called within 20 lines of
>>> each other. Obviously it's much better to be able to grep for one
>>> spelling of the word, not either.
>> I have a slight preference for the american spelling.
>> But you can use:
>> grep "neighbo[u]*r" ...
> Of course, but the value is that someone who uses the non-agreed
> spelling will get zero hits, and someone using the agreed spelling
> will get all the hits, and nobody needs to be alert to the possibility
> of an alternative spelling... How many non-native English speakers
> would be aware of this one? (I won't dare ask how many American
> English speakers would be aware of this one... :-P)
I fully agree, I was just joking.
When you work in Europe (like I do) you probably publish in European and
which means that you would (or should) be aware of most of these pitfalls.
Still we somehow managed to mess up the code.
First I thought I was the prime suspect, as I think the old code used
whereas I prefer American. But I found others added inconsistent routine
names as well.
I think we should agree on complete British or American spelling for the
as well as the manual.
I just checked the manual and it only contains "neighbor", no "neighbour".
Somebody already decided to clean up that mess in 1999.
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers