-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
Add DualObjectiveValue #473
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
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #473 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 93.83% 93.89% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 54 54
Lines 5677 5754 +77
==========================================
+ Hits 5327 5403 +76
- Misses 350 351 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
How much breakage will this cause in the solver interfaces? Are we sure that the solvers can implement this? Do we really want the fallback for |
If we go in this direction, then we should do
The reason, the first and last one are merged into |
Maybe we shouldn't go in this direction then. I'm not excited about bikeshedding really basic definitions of objective values at the moment. The current ones are workable. Realistically, doing so will probably delay JuMP 0.19 by two weeks by the time we agree on new definitions and propagate them everywhere. |
Ready for review :) |
Any objection to this new attribute ? |
Closes #681