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
Make ompy more modular #195
Comments
What would be the benefit? I agree with the goal of modularity, but due to how inflexible Python is (e.g a class can only have one definition, each method can only have one definition), and how many moving parts the Oslo method has, decoupling the For example, the plotting of Another example would be the index arrays, such as In short, I agree with the intent, but it would introduce more problems than it solves. This is due to the limitations of Python more than OMpy. I have been writing an OMpy clone in Julia, where this problem does not exist, as the implementation of a type and its methods are distinct. I'm very much open to a better OMpy design, if you have any ideas:) |
I might not have made my idea clear enough😅 I don't suggest a major change to the design. The point was to make it possible to install OMpy without having to install dependencies such as The way one could achieve this would be to re-organize the package structure to something like:
where one can install just the "core" functionality, |
Ah, I understand! I like the idea:) |
At some point we should consider separating the physics and the "core" classes into different modules. One way could be to have an
ompy.core
module that contains theMatrix
,Vector
classes and misc. library functions that are strictly not Oslo method related.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: