This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 23, 2018. It is now read-only.
Small clean-up in Bisection #158
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that this is the correct condition but please check.
|
LGTM |
vladimir-ch
force-pushed
the
bisection
branch
from
06f76af to
79d85f7
Compare
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I looked into adding
DecreaseFactortoBisectionas discussed in #155. I am not sure if the logic of iterating towards the minimum would work under all conditions with a positiveDecreaseFactor. I think that it would consists of more than just modifying anifcheck and passing a non-zero toStrongWolfeConditionsMet. Quite possibly a two-stage approach like inMoreThuentewould be needed. Therefore I abandon the plan for the moment.So at least I did a tiny cleanup. PTAL @btracey