Fix inconsistent MS interface naming and hierarchy #1857
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Mailaender
force-pushed
the
unvendor-ms
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e13777e
to
226aa38
Compare
Mailaender
force-pushed
the
unvendor-ms
branch
from
226aa38
to
120a3c6
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
IVendorStandaloneMassSpectrum→IStandaloneMassSpectrumbecause as far as I see it, the vendor prefix is for specific file formats, not for model code. I didn't know what I was doing when proposing this initially. There is still one MS interface with that prefix, but I didn't touch it yet, even though I think that is what confused me initially.Also changed the inheritance, so I could remove some of the
Max/MinPossibleSomethingimplementation that had no meaning in that context when we are talking about vendor neutral XML file formats.