Christoph Ortner

> I saw that a plural form for each setter function is added. Wouldn't defining singular as well as plural form of interface functions lead to numerous functions in the...

So it just seems to come down to different people having different mental pathways. That's always unfortunate and makes it difficult to decide. Maybe this change needs to be postponed....

Thanks everyone for the comments so far. As I start working on the PR we can still discuss. For now I won't make the singular/plural change yet.

> long-term need a standard implementation ... I don't think it needs to be decided now which implementation this should be I agree with this. > Change of name particle_id...

POLL: `particle_id` vs `particle_type` to return the category (e.g. chemical element) of a particle. `particle_id` : 👍 `particle_type` : 👎

POLL: do you agree to deprecate `atomic_mass` (👍 vs 👎 )

POLL: do you agree to - deprecate `position(sys)` and to enforce the use of `position(sys, :)` - not introduce `positions(sys)` This this motion is defeated then this discussion will be...

Re I'd vs type. We don't have to rush this. Is there a better terminology? I think both are problematic with type maybe Margo ally preferrable? - species - category...

> For the position proposal, why not a slight variant to what you propose where: > > * deprecate `position(sys)` so that `position` always requires two arguments, i.e. `position(sys,i)` or...

Regarding id, type, kind, category, species: I think the term we choose has to capture the distinction between types of atoms rather than the distinctions between - say - atoms,...