You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
However, the __init__ functions for objects higher in the dependency structure still require explicit passing of lower-level objects, e.g., in the rtcc object:
This API implies some flexibility as to whichccwfn or cclambda objects the user might pass into the constructor, as though it could actually be different from that used to build the rtcc propagator, but this is clearly not the case.
I think we should change the higher-level interfaces to be more careful about exposing fragile dependencies to user whims/errors. This would also simplify the interfaces, which is always nice, but, of course, would require changing all our test cases.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We have a natural hierarchy of dependencies within
PyCC
, e.g.:hamiltonian
<--ccwfn
<--cclambda
<--ccdensity
<--rtcc
However, the
__init__
functions for objects higher in the dependency structure still require explicit passing of lower-level objects, e.g., in thertcc
object:pycc/pycc/rt/rtcc.py
Line 60 in 34f928d
This API implies some flexibility as to which
ccwfn
orcclambda
objects the user might pass into the constructor, as though it could actually be different from that used to build thertcc
propagator, but this is clearly not the case.I think we should change the higher-level interfaces to be more careful about exposing fragile dependencies to user whims/errors. This would also simplify the interfaces, which is always nice, but, of course, would require changing all our test cases.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: