Generalize signatures of convenience constructors #241
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #241 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.26% 99.26%
=======================================
Files 18 18
Lines 410 410
=======================================
Hits 407 407
Misses 3 3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
sglyon
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2018
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes what I'm guessing is the underlying issue reported in #230.
Also makes a number of documentation improvements. In the README, I moved the "convenience constructors" down towards the bottom; I don't agree with the previous characterization as a "Quickstart guide" because it teaches people to circumvent, rather than use, the general framework. It's just a different (and more limited) way of doing things. (I also think those "constructors" probably shouldn't be capitalized, but since I didn't get that in #226 let's wait until we have more things to change, e.g., #227 for which I think we need to wait for a suitable deprecation period with the current deprecations before re-assigning the meaning of
itp[i, j].)