[mpas-developers] Naming Schemes

[Doug Jacobsen]

I don't mean that what ever you replace [core] with has to be generic, I
just mean that it's nothing specific (where [model] would mostly be mpas_).
In this case, [core] can be chosen by the developers of that core. And you
could potentially have multiple [core]'s if that makes sense for the
development of that core.

I am not involved in the development of mpas-sea ice, but I personally would
think that mpas_seaice would be better than mpas_cice, just because cice is
it's own stand alone model. The analog for that would be if we chose to name
the ocean core mpas_pop instead of mpas_ocn. But again it's all preference
from the developers.

Doug

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Elizabeth Hunke <eclare at lanl.gov> wrote:

> Is there a reason that [core] needs to be generic?   We could have more
> than one sea ice option, for instance, in which case it would make sense to
> use 'cice' for LANL's sea ice component.
> e
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/mpas-developers/attachments/20110929/338c2186/attachment.html