On 13-1-2014 19:19, clipka wrote:
> Am 13.01.2014 11:19, schrieb andrel:
>> On 13-1-2014 0:56, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 12.01.2014 22:21, schrieb andrel:
>>>
>>
>>> As for a function's name, I find it very important that it denotes not
>>> /how/ the function does something, nor just /what/ it does, but also
>>> with what /intention/.
>>>
>> True, but this is a general case where the point is that there are still
>> several ways to do things. More specific names are needed lower in the
>> tree.
>> In this case I would go for something like:
>>
>> ECG=ComputeECGfromTiming(Timing,VolumeConductionModel,ElectricalModel,
>> Parameters);
>>
>> or simply
>>
>> ECG=ComputeECGfromTiming(Timing,ForwardModel);
>
> Sounds like a very good choice to me.
>

Well, luckily I am not the one that decides.
OTOH I am sort of forced to use it even if it is IMO unsuitable for 
research purposes. Perhaps you can understand now some of the reasons why.
One day I might just stand up and give a short introduction on 
programming. Which will probably be the end of the cooperation.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message