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

permlist behavior for mindist functions should be better defined #5

Open
js850 opened this issue Aug 20, 2013 · 2 comments
Open

permlist behavior for mindist functions should be better defined #5

js850 opened this issue Aug 20, 2013 · 2 comments

Comments

@js850
Copy link
Member

js850 commented Aug 20, 2013

I think if permlist is None it assumes that all the atoms are permutable. this is unintuitive and should probably be changed.

@ruehle
Copy link

ruehle commented Aug 20, 2013

I think we discussed that before. I would argue the opposite way: None means not specified -> let mindist decide what do to. an empty list [] would be explicitly setting there are no permutations. I agree that None could be ambiguous, but i think [] is more intuitive for no permutatons?

@js850
Copy link
Member Author

js850 commented Aug 21, 2013

That's what we decided before, but I'm changing my mind. It just seems so counterintuitive to have permlist==None mean that all atoms are permutable. Especially when a completely homogeneous system is not really all that common.

On 20 Aug 2013, at 18:35, ruehle wrote:

I think we discussed that before. I would argue the opposite way: None means not specified -> let mindist decide what do to. an empty list [] would be explicitly setting there are no permutations. I agree that None could be ambiguous, but i think [] is more intuitive for no permutatons?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants