Krishna Kumar

@jgiven100 That's a good solution. Thanks!!

> @kks Seems like there might have been a Clang update? Clang is failing [here](https://github.com/cb-geo/mpm/blob/develop/include/cell.tcc#L415). Seems to have been passing before. >  I thought it was `cppcheck` not clang:...

Thanks, Tianchi! Would we be deriving the two Phase particles from Particle or ParticleBase class? So, there will be a lot of virtual functions which won't be active in Particle,...

When we add more phases, this might get more complicated. Could we look at some Design Patterns, and see if we can adapt any of them. I'm tinking of Decorator...

I'm planning to use the decorator pattern to refactor the Solver, we can have an RFC to discuss that separately. Could we potentially create a new class for Fluid phase...

@tianchiTJ could you please add ClassNames and their inheritance scheme to your RFC, thank you!

When we do TwoPhaseParticle, would all particles be `TwoPhaseParticle`s? If you have a derived class pointer, then you don't need to define it in ParticleBase.

The issue with doing all functions in `ParticleBase` is we need to add all these unnecessary throws for solid particle and it will keep increasing when we add ThreePhase. If...

@tianchiTJ I just meant adding class names and inheritance to the documentation in RFC.

An additional argument against deriving classes to handle `TwoPhase` which are not consistent with the base class contract. This argument also applies to #634 C++ coding standards: 101 rules -...