Renaming of beam3

[davidrudlstorfer]

Is there actually any reason that our beam3 module is called beam3 rather than just beam? Following the renaming of the structure I would also propose to rename the beam module although it being status quo. Maybe I am missing something here, that's the reason for the discussion

@ALL beam people (sorry if I forgot someone)

@isteinbrecher @maxfirmbach @knarfnitram @dharinib98 @davidrudlstorfer

[isteinbrecher]

Historically I think there were multiple beam implementations in 4C, and beam3 was the 3D one. Since that is the only one left, I am fine with renaming it.

I would however not rename Beam3R, Beam3KL, Beam3EB.

[davidrudlstorfer]

Thanks for your input - just one question; why not rename beam3r and so on?

[isteinbrecher]

For two reasons, first of all, these names are very deeply embedded in all sorts of scripts of everyone who is working with beams.

But more importantly, for the element, I think it makes sense to keep the 3. For example if one would add a 2D implementation (for whatever reason), we can add a beam2r element (to the beam folder) and the naming is still consistent.

[davidrudlstorfer]

The first reason does not really resonate with me :D it would be a super straight forward search and replace for all occurences without any complicated logic behind

Then let's keep the current approach based on your second point and not change anything.