It's all fine provided that you keep it backward-compatible. Else it's
worst than the initial pb in my view.
Cheers
Bruno
Le mer. 29 avr. 2020 09:37, Jerome Duriez a écrit :
> Thanks for feedback, what about just a change in name: gravWork ->
> gravPotential ?
>
> There would be no more doubts
Thanks for feedback, what about just a change in name: gravWork ->
gravPotential ?
There would be no more doubts whether it is work by gravity or work
against gravity ; and decrease of that quantity during a fall would seem
more logical to me (and others ?)
I agree otherwise with your genera
Hi Jérôme,
I feel like it is a question of perspective, and undecidable overall.
Is it work by gravity or work against gravity? You can find the two
meanings easily. It's still a work in both cases.
OTOH it seems these energies are underdocumented overall. I did not find a
list of available energi
I now think the most logical would be to keep this expression with a
minus sign [*], but rename 'gravWork' into 'gravPotential' (like we have
'elastPotential').
It would reconcile for me the name with the coded expression, and be
more logical with the existence of O.energy.total() function (wh
4 matches
Mail list logo
