Open jmlorenzi opened 8 years ago
Hi, yeah
I am actually not sure it is so useful. It sure is sweet syntactic sugar but I think reintroducing it back into local_smart
is quite intricate because local_smart
is quite intricate. I think in many cases it would be easier to generate two processes for each case or use a Bystander in combination with your OTF backend. I think that is a more general approach and quite powerful, too! Right now I see more use-cases if we really iron-out your OTF backend and generate conditions like the one you mention on they way. Do you have a different viewpoint on this?
Best, Max.
I do think is more interesting to go on an improve otf. However, there are models in which local_smart
is faster than either local_smart
or otf
(at least in it's current state). I suspect that allowing checks of several possible species right in case(spec1,spec2,...)
in the search tree will be faster than configuring (potentally very many) extra processes...
I also expected it not to be so difficult to put in. But maybe the risk of breaking something outweighs this relatively small advantage...
Ok, for you concern of breaking the backend I should put in some runtime tests for model using the existing syntax without OR
. Give me a couple of days.
In lat_int you can say
Condition(cood=some_coord, species='CO or NO')
but not in local_smart.
I can try to implement that if you think it is useful.