-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 393
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
Improve matrix inequality support #3778
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3778 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 98.40% 98.40%
=======================================
Files 44 44
Lines 5956 5966 +10
=======================================
+ Hits 5861 5871 +10
Misses 95 95 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Can we just replace JuMP.jl/src/macros/@constraint.jl Line 583 in 301d46e
What are the other cases that you'd like to intercept ? |
I didn't do this, because it could be interpreted as a breaking change. |
Bump @blegat |
Breaking change for which function ? We are changing it to |
Changes the return of |
Indeed, the function could be used outside of a JuMP macro. I'd say it is minor. |
I made a slight tweak to get rid of |
I still think this complicating things too much just for such a small breaking change. Users are expected to implement |
Okay how about now |
I'd prefer to name things for what they are rather than what they are used for. |
Let's please not have |
How about |
This needs something similar to #3797 |
What do you mean ? |
It needed the adjoint dual for the new constraints, which is why this PR is
based against #3797
…On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, 12:17 am Benoît Legat, ***@***.***> wrote:
This needs something similar to #3797
<#3797>
What do you mean ?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3778 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB6MQJJXGCZ54AZI6C6MI3DZP5UMHAVCNFSM6AAAAABJ4WXBR6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENRYHEZTINBRHE>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Okay, this is good to go on my end. |
Follow-up to #3766.
In our discussion of #3766, we never really talked about the fact that
==
is not ambiguous.