You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm currently naming some libraries under radiance as radiance***. In specific the libraries are radianceparameters and radianceproperties. I'm wondering if I should remove the radiance part since it's already under radiance folder?
fromhoneybee.radianceimportradianceparameters# can change tofromhoneybee.radianceimportparameters
The reason that I currently named them like this is to avoid name conflicts down the road with similar libraries under EnergyPlus but I'm not sure if that's a good reason.
+1 for from honeybee.radiance import parameters
I agree with you. I don't foresee there being a conflict as you mentioned that parameters specific to radiance will be inside the honeybee.radiance package anyway.
These changes will break the current grasshopper implementation.
Here is the summary of changes:
1. Addressed #3 - all the libraries are named with no radiance in name.
2. Addressed #4 - replaced all different methods to toRadString(). Many
of the objects have a minimal input to get a one line string for the
object.
3. Added Custom, Glass and Plastic materials.
4. Broke down sky and material libraries into separate files similar to
command
5. Renamed commands to command
6. Updated documentation in master branch
I'm currently naming some libraries under radiance as radiance***. In specific the libraries are radianceparameters and radianceproperties. I'm wondering if I should remove the radiance part since it's already under radiance folder?
The reason that I currently named them like this is to avoid name conflicts down the road with similar libraries under EnergyPlus but I'm not sure if that's a good reason.
cc: @sariths , @chriswmackey
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: