Polish + Prepare IEEEST for release - #520
Conversation
pelesh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need to consider differential variable designation as the compile-time requirement, because it will become so once we introduce Hessenberg form for DAEs.
| tag_[0] = (O1_ > 0.0); | ||
| tag_[1] = (O2_ > 0.0); | ||
| tag_[2] = (O3_ > 0.0); | ||
| tag_[3] = (a4_ > 0.0); | ||
| tag_[4] = (T2_ > 0.0); | ||
| tag_[5] = (T4_ > 0.0); | ||
| tag_[6] = (T6_ > 0.0); | ||
| tag_[7] = false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe we agree that this cannot be the way to configure differential and algebraic variables. This approach will work with implicit DAE formulation but will fail for Hessenberg form.
If we are to pack models of different order in this component, we do need to add separate residual functions for each order. I don't see way around it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. I think that the template parameter approach (the other PR) is the cleanest. Think starting with this which shows all the permutations is a good starting point showing the requirements so we can design the compile time version maintainably
119d7a5 to
f5665f5
Compare
|
Closing in favor of #460 |
Description
Added doxygen and made one functional correction to the model (initialization).
Proposed changes
Checklist
-Wall -Wpedantic -Wconversion -Wextra.Further comments
Half of the model is already implicit, so this jsut make it consistent and helps with the ugly parameter validation until a cleaner design is approved.