Skip to content
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

Vector Unitals in drasil-data should have Space of Vect Real #3246

Open
samm82 opened this issue Jan 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Vector Unitals in drasil-data should have Space of Vect Real #3246

samm82 opened this issue Jan 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@samm82
Copy link
Collaborator

samm82 commented Jan 26, 2023

As mentioned here by @JacquesCarette in #3237, many physics quantities in drasil-data should have a space of Vect Real, not of Real (for example, positionVec). However, "Drasil might not be ready for it, so it should be done incrementally."

Perhaps you would want to comment on this @balacij?

@balacij
Copy link
Collaborator

balacij commented Jan 26, 2023

I can try to 😄

I strongly agree with @JacquesCarette, I don't think that switching the types of those unitals should be done in the same PR. It's likely asking for too much in one PR since type-checking issues are likely to occur. Right now, the type-checking results are shown in the console logs (around the start of each case study's execution). With each variable type change, there's a chance that it results in a flurry of other type-checking issues, so it might take a while. I can definitely try to help out more with this.

#2587 is a relevant issue to this too. It would be nice for us to re-evaluate how vectors are generally done in Drasil, and 'fix' them to work as intended and needed.

Vectors are certainly a hot topic in Drasil. I think we all want them to be more usable. I would like to get to working on them too, I'm just a bit lost with what work to prioritize right now. I'm going to try to orient myself a bit more this weekend, but hopefully I can find some time to work on them asap. Perhaps we can (all?) collaborate to fix it up?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants