Forgive me.? Since "X" and "Y" are just placeholders for the actual
variables, it's obviously not important if they were exchanged from
normal practice in the discussion.? The important thing is whatever
follows "of" in the construct is the integrand.
thanks,
Karl
On 10/24/17 3:56 PM, Karl Taylor wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think "X" should be the independent variable and "Y", the dependent
> variable (appearing as the integrand).? I would then prefer
> "integral_over_X_of_Y" or "integral_of_Y_over_X" (although I wouldn't
> object if the consensus is that "wrt" should replace "over").? [I
> don't like "integral_wrt_Y_of_X" because that seems to say that X is
> the integrand.]
>
> best,
> Karl
>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:15:53PM +0100, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>>> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:15:53 +0100
>>> From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
>>> To: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>>> CC: stephen.griffies at noaa.gov, cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu,
>>> durack1 at llnl.gov
>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP: physics
>>> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
>>>
>>> Dear Alison?? cc Steve, Paul
>>>
>>> Sorry for slow response. I've read Steve's edited version and I
>>> agree with
>>> your and Steve's proposals. Thanks. Changing all the
>>> integral_of_X_wrt_Y to
>>> integration_wrt_Y_of_X will make them more readable, I think, and
>>> it's a
>> I meant integral_wrt_Y_of_X of course. Sorry.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Tue Oct 24 2017 - 17:02:25 BST
