Add n_points methods for immutable Morphology & Vasculature

[eleftherioszisis]

Closes #357

[adrien-berchet]

Looks good to me, thanks!
I am just wondering if the property of the Morphology should not be called n_section_points to be more clear?

[eleftherioszisis]

Looks good to me, thanks! I am just wondering if the property of the Morphology should not be called n_section_points to be more clear?

Given that there are no other points to be confused within the morphology, isn't it redundant?

[adrien-berchet]

Looks good to me, thanks! I am just wondering if the property of the Morphology should not be called n_section_points to be more clear?

Given that there are no other points to be confused within the morphology, isn't it redundant?

It's just to make more explicit that the soma points are not counted. But as you prefer, both are good to me, it was just a comment.

[eleftherioszisis]

The main reason I prefer n_points is that it reflects the points dataset. Introducing a name with a different infix would make the user think that it might be something more than a counting of the points dataset.

[adrien-berchet]

Yeah that's why both are good to me, I don't know if one is better than the other for a new user but let's approve like this :)

[mgeplf]

I think the point about the naming is important; instead of n_section_points, would n_neurite_points work?

Depending on what underlying file ppl are using, they may consider points and sections to include the soma...

[eleftherioszisis]

I think the point about the naming is important; instead of n_section_points, would n_neurite_points work?
Depending on what underlying file ppl are using, they may consider points and sections to include the soma...

morphio has no concept of neurites as it works exclusively with sections. Therefore, if a different name is to be used, n_section_points would be more suitable imho. However, as I said above I like how n_points maps intuitively to the points dataset, because otherwise points should be have beed renamed into section_points.

But if having a more specific name would avoid any potential confusion, should I use n_section_points as @adrien-berchet suggested?

[mgeplf]

[...] I like how n_points maps intuitively to the points dataset, because otherwise points should be have beed renamed into section_points.

Ok, I see the sense in it, your initial intuition was spot on.