Closed ceriottm closed 7 years ago
Of course, I agree with the syntax... but I would close the branch and open an issue with what you said...
merge and close?
On 31 January 2017 at 15:53, Riccardo Petraglia notifications@github.com wrote:
Of course, I agree with the syntax... but I would close the branch and open an issue with what you said...
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/epfl-cosmo/i-pi-dev/pull/163#issuecomment-276384263, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABESZ8Y7nYrWfX7qrhQmycRotlmys7dMks5rX0regaJpZM4LwqoA .
Yes... sure... merge before... :)
My idea is that we should keep as less as possible open branches... having opened issues is much more visible and easier to maintain (no need for merging and stuff like that).
With input from @OndrejMarsalek and @grhawk I want to propose a simpler (or at least less verbose) syntax to access depend objects and construct the dependent chains. If there are no objections, I'd merge but leave the branch active, and slowly convert existing dget/dset syntax to the new one. Also, would be nice to add a few unit tests concerning depend objects, and perhaps a tool to print the full graph of dependencies of an i-PI session.