-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 314
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
Default validator #64
Comments
I think that the standard parameter class should be as general as possible, and therefore not include any assumptions on the input data, I think having |
I'm not sure. Currently our data storage assumes all set and measured parameters will be numbers, and I think it will break if non-numeric data comes in, so I would kind of like it if you have to actively declare non-numeric valid inputs. |
Group decission pending. Arguments for vals.Nothing() as default validator |
Not vals.Anything () ? On 15 Jul 2016 11:01, "Adriaan" notifications@github.com wrote:
|
I don't like |
I see your point, but I think I do not agree. I ended up worth a lot of parameters that take string Values. You can not The reason I promote .Anything is that the default domain of a mathematical I see that there are distances between this and qcodes, but this is my 2 But as said, I like "Nothing" more than "Numbers" On 15 Jul 2016 11:56, "alexcjohnson" notifications@github.com wrote:
|
I think Number() is the sanest because the default is not the most general case but rather the most idiot proof //simple case. |
The parameter class at this point, uses
Numbers()
as its defaultvalidator
.I think it would be better, as a default, to use
Anything()
What do you all think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: