Closed pablokrupa closed 6 months ago
Another alternative here would be to simplify the two options structures into a single structure. Particularly because evidently it is not clear where some options should go (see Issue #25, for example).
That is, instead of having a solver_options
and a options
, we could merge then into a unique opt
. Each solver and MPC formulation could modify the given opt
to add the missing fields (with their optional values). That way the problem of where a specific option should go disappears (see Issue #25).
This issue has been fixed as of release 'v0.3.10' (bb8406630ea952b0b5ba63e180d0030f91e8390c), since options are now handled by the Spcies_options
class.
Similar to #25, but for the
in_engineering
options. Currently, to set thein_engineering
option to true thesolver_options
structure must contain a field.in_engineering = true
. It would be more logical for this field to be included in theoptions
structure instead.