for branch_get_P_km and related methods, should t come before values for consistency?

[ttinoco]

@awig what do you think?

[awig]

@ttinoco Certainly in favor of it if it improves consistency. I was comparing it to other network element functions like BUS_set_price(Bus* bus, REAL price, int t) where the value being set comes before the t argument. However, i do see the consistency it would have with other functions that use arguments of type Vec like FUNC_LOAD_UTIL_eval_step(Func f, Branch br, int t, Vec* var_values). Is this a good example of what you mean?

[ttinoco]

Yes, exactly I was thinking of function and constraint eval step routines. I am not sure which option is has the majority On Jun 2, 2017 5:43 PM, "Adam Wigington" notifications@github.com wrote:

@ttinoco https://github.com/ttinoco Certainly in favor of it if it improves consistency. I was comparing it to other network element functions like BUS_set_price(Bus bus, REAL price, int t) https://github.com/ttinoco/PFNET/blob/master/include/pfnet/bus.h#L239 where the value being set comes before the t argument. However, i do see the consistency it would have with other functions that use arguments of type Vec like FUNC_LOAD_UTIL_eval_step(Func f, Branch br, int t, Vec var_values) https://github.com/ttinoco/PFNET/blob/fb83671e43f759745eae5aed888a5f425feb4c33/include/pfnet/func_LOAD_UTIL.h#L24. Is this a good example of what you mean?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ttinoco/PFNET/issues/88#issuecomment-305825595, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGFYf-evbbRwFd2au4w9z77UJvu_sOKMks5sAC22gaJpZM4NuaRB .