Skip to content

new dynamics and output functions for statespace and iosystems #558

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 19, 2021
Merged

new dynamics and output functions for statespace and iosystems #558

merged 5 commits into from
Mar 19, 2021

Conversation

sawyerbfuller
Copy link
Contributor

@sawyerbfuller sawyerbfuller commented Mar 11, 2021 •
edited
Loading

revised version of #546.

  • makes t argument required following discussion there. not sure yet that this is the best, but I was almost there already so I just submitted this PR.
  • benchmark results in the discussion of that PR that showed that creating a separate callable that skips argument processing had only a small performance advantage, so I decided to leave dynamics as a method.
  • leaves code and usage of _rhs and _out unchanged in iosys. The idea is to leave them as fast internal methods and to have dynamics and output serve as more user-friendly versions where speed is of less importance.

@sawyerbfuller sawyerbfuller mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2021
Closed
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Mar 11, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 88.872% when pulling 23c4b09 on sawyerbfuller:dynamics2 into 92de12d on python-control:master.

murrayrm
murrayrm reviewed Mar 12, 2021
View reviewed changes
@murrayrm murrayrm mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2021
Closed
@murrayrm murrayrm added this to the 0.9.0 milestone Mar 13, 2021
@murrayrm murrayrm merged commit 22b9953 into python-control:master Mar 19, 2021
@sawyerbfuller sawyerbfuller linked an issue Mar 19, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request
Some way of stepping a system? #83
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@murrayrm murrayrm murrayrm approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.9.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Some way of stepping a system?
3 participants
@sawyerbfuller @coveralls @murrayrm