Replies: 3 comments 6 replies
-
I am also going towards not including optimizing stuff. I think including optimization will also mean that will include distributions object etc. Even if I think that won't take too much time to reach this point I think it is good to stop earlier. I also think that doing that will be kind of beneficial to highlight that anyone can easily interact with the library at a relatively low level and plug already existing code/scripts in all languages. I also agree with the list of issues and corresponding feature, some of them (like #106 and #115) are new features compared to existing codes (python transport maps and matlab). FYI there is a PR for #40 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
But optimization is still utilized in the examples, right? Or are there some low-level examples you are thinking about? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
What about #140? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I think we're about ready to start preparing a JOSS submission on MParT, but want to make we're all on the same page about what we need to do before submission. I think the biggest question is whether we want to include MParT-based optimization in this first submission or not. Even though optimization is on our near-term roadmap, I'm leaning towards not including it in this first submission. I think we should focus entirely on the parameterization framework itself. That said, I do think the extra transformations discussed in Issues #115 and #89 should be included. What do you think?
The current list of issues to close before JOSS submission would be #40, #44, #70, #71, #80, #82, #89, #106, #115, #124, #141 . What do you all think?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions