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
OFF-EP 0005 #30
OFF-EP 0005 #30
Conversation
Also remove the modification of `Coulomb` -> `no-cutoff`
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I approve this OFF EP as written. Thanks for your careful work proposing and drafting this change, @mattwthompson!
Co-authored-by: Jeff Wagner <jwagnerjpl@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approved! However, please make minor grammatical fixes/clarifications as noted.
<Electrostatics version="0.3" method="PME" scale12="0.0" scale13="0.0" scale14="0.833333" scale15="1.0"/> | ||
``` | ||
|
||
to the equivalent of reading |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure this is grammatically correct; should it be "to the less ambiguous new version, which would read" or something? It depends on what you mean here and i find it at least confusing and possibly not grammatically correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm more or less trying to say how the toolkit will/should handle up-conversions of this snippet, which I'm pretty sure is the only one that's out in the wild. I can see I was being a little ambiguous in thinking about the in-memory representation where simply saying what is should look like post up-conversion would be simpler.
I still think it's a mistake to leave fixing the other issues identified in #29 (comment) to a future 0.5, since it will mean that we have to write code that upconverts 0.3 to both 0.4 and to 0.5, and 0.4 to 0.5 (where Is the plan to immediately propose the 0.5 version with the appropriate naming convention changes (e.g. |
@jchodera I think Matt is open to alternate proposals, but unless there ARE alternate proposals, we have to move forward with what we have, since we clearly need to resolve the present ambiguity. What do you propose instead? |
|
It appears #34 has the momentum (which I am excited about!) so I'll close this now. Can revisit if anything changes. |
Resolves #29