This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 23, 2022. It is now read-only.
Use more general term 'sampler' in place of noise references #30
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The goal of this PR is to formalize the jargon 'sampler'.
A sampler can be formally defined as a function that maps world coordinates (including the seed) to a set of numerical values.
Potentially ambiguous references to noise functions, noise configs, noise algorithms, noise equations, etc, can be better expressed via the more general term 'sampler' (which is already used internally). Not all samplers necessarily constitute the use of pseudorandom noise, and so distinguishing between the general concept of a sampler, and more specific forms of samplers (such as pseudorandom noise samplers) will hopefully provide better avenues of explaining non-noise-producing samplers (such as the expression sampler).