Skip to content
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

Get back to simpler code? #49

Open
rgaiacs opened this issue Jul 17, 2015 · 3 comments
Open

Get back to simpler code? #49

rgaiacs opened this issue Jul 17, 2015 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@rgaiacs
Copy link
Contributor

@rgaiacs rgaiacs commented Jul 17, 2015

At last debriefing session someone mention that

defensive programming lesson as written takes a big leap from the previous lessons; the normalize_rectangle and range_overlap code would be tough for beginners to jump into. Maybe instead of starting with that tough new code we could throw some "assert" commands into their run_analysis function (for the inflammation data) to make sure the loaded datasets have the correct number of lines.

and

lesson going back to simpler code (maybe the temperature functions) would be helpful.

@shwina
Copy link
Member

@shwina shwina commented Jul 24, 2015

Thanks, @r-gaia-cs

I raised an issue about this in the Python lesson repo a while ago: swcarpentry/python-novice-inflammation#134

It's good to know that other instructors feel the same way. Happy to implement this for the MATLAB lessons. Thanks!

@gvwilson
Copy link
Member

@gvwilson gvwilson commented Jul 31, 2016

any action required?

rgaiacs pushed a commit to rgaiacs/swc-matlab-novice-inflammation that referenced this issue May 6, 2017
@gcapes
Copy link
Contributor

@gcapes gcapes commented Jul 13, 2018

I think this is a good idea, but I'm not sure what sort of example we might use instead. Any ideas? If possible it would be good to link back to the inflammation narrative.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants