Skip to content

Conversation

@vincepandolfo
Copy link
Contributor

@vincepandolfo vincepandolfo commented Aug 4, 2016

This PR tries to address some of the problems discussed in issue #71 .

  • It is now possible to initialize TimeData objects using an initializer function. (Note: This is also the only way to initialize them if save=True). test_save.py has been modified to demonstrate this.
  • Removed get_data and init_data

@vincepandolfo vincepandolfo force-pushed the timedata_initializer branch 2 times, most recently from 6192350 to 22c3a66 Compare August 4, 2016 17:38
@FabioLuporini
Copy link
Contributor

FabioLuporini commented Aug 5, 2016

So the only thing that I can think of (the rest is OK) is that the initializer function could be provided directly through the constructor. Is this still correct ?

@mlange05
Copy link

mlange05 commented Aug 5, 2016

Looks good to me. I would like to add the initializer function to the constructor, although that's not a critical requirement.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you want to use the % operator here to make sure this works even if the number of timesteps above is changed? That would also make the code more self-explanatory.

@FabioLuporini
Copy link
Contributor

Now it is in the constructor. Good

@navjotk navjotk merged commit 21ee5c2 into master Aug 8, 2016
@navjotk
Copy link
Member

navjotk commented Aug 8, 2016

Merged

@mlange05 mlange05 deleted the timedata_initializer branch August 24, 2016 08:26
ZoeLeibowitz added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants