New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow passing of tuples for setting constraints on model parameters #4574

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@anchitjain1234
Contributor

anchitjain1234 commented Feb 6, 2016

For #3028.

@eteq

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eteq

eteq Apr 5, 2016

Member

@anchitjain1234 - this needs a changelog entry as it's a new feature.

@astrofrog or @nden or @embray - this looks good to me, do you agree it doesn't conflict with intended future plans (aside from the possibility of some of the major changes discussed at the pyastro16 conference)?

Member

eteq commented Apr 5, 2016

@anchitjain1234 - this needs a changelog entry as it's a new feature.

@astrofrog or @nden or @embray - this looks good to me, do you agree it doesn't conflict with intended future plans (aside from the possibility of some of the major changes discussed at the pyastro16 conference)?

@anchitjain1234

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@anchitjain1234

anchitjain1234 Apr 5, 2016

Contributor

@eteq added changelog entry in New Features.

Contributor

anchitjain1234 commented Apr 5, 2016

@eteq added changelog entry in New Features.

@astrofrog

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@astrofrog

astrofrog May 10, 2016

Member

@nden - I'm -0.5 on this change - doesn't it then make assumptions about the order of the parameters? (and shouldn't we avoid that?)

Member

astrofrog commented May 10, 2016

@nden - I'm -0.5 on this change - doesn't it then make assumptions about the order of the parameters? (and shouldn't we avoid that?)

@nden

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nden

nden May 12, 2016

Contributor

@astrofrog Yes, this relies on the user supplying the constraints in the same order as the parameters, (e.g. by looking at model.param_names). So it doesn't add much convenience in the general case but requires supporting another interface. This may be a concern now that we are planning to use models with sherpa. (-0.75 from me.)

Contributor

nden commented May 12, 2016

@astrofrog Yes, this relies on the user supplying the constraints in the same order as the parameters, (e.g. by looking at model.param_names). So it doesn't add much convenience in the general case but requires supporting another interface. This may be a concern now that we are planning to use models with sherpa. (-0.75 from me.)

@astrofrog astrofrog removed this from the v1.2.0 milestone Jun 3, 2016

@bsipocz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bsipocz

bsipocz Mar 22, 2017

Member

@astrofrog @nden - Have you changed your minds about this, or shall we close?

Member

bsipocz commented Mar 22, 2017

@astrofrog @nden - Have you changed your minds about this, or shall we close?

@bsipocz bsipocz added the Close? label Mar 22, 2017

@bsipocz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bsipocz

bsipocz May 24, 2017

Member

I'm closing this now due to the concerns above and inactivity.

Member

bsipocz commented May 24, 2017

I'm closing this now due to the concerns above and inactivity.

@bsipocz bsipocz closed this May 24, 2017

@bsipocz bsipocz removed the Close? label May 24, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment