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

Create iaf_psc_alpha_ps #370

Closed
heplesser opened this issue May 26, 2016 · 10 comments
Closed

Create iaf_psc_alpha_ps #370

heplesser opened this issue May 26, 2016 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels
I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) S: Normal Handle this with default priority T: Enhancement New functionality, model or documentation ZC: Model DO NOT USE THIS LABEL ZP: PR Created DO NOT USE THIS LABEL

Comments

@heplesser
Copy link
Contributor

We currently have models iaf_psc_exp_ps and iaf_psc_delta_ps, which are direct precise equivalents of their normal counterparts. Create iaf_psc_alpha_ps as direct counterpart to iaf_psc_alpha. Currently, we only have iaf_psc_alpha_canon, which only has a single synaptic time constant, while iaf_psc_alpha has different time constants for E and I synapses. The _canon and _presc models are counterparts to iaf_neuron, not iaf_psc_alpha.

@heplesser heplesser added the T: Enhancement New functionality, model or documentation label May 26, 2016
@Silmathoron
Copy link
Member

Silmathoron commented May 27, 2016

It's in my PR #229, but it's a GSL version...

@heplesser
Copy link
Contributor Author

Since #229 was not merged, we are still lacking these models. See also #368 .

@heplesser heplesser added ZC: Model DO NOT USE THIS LABEL I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) ZP: Pending DO NOT USE THIS LABEL S: Normal Handle this with default priority labels Nov 17, 2016
@Silmathoron
Copy link
Member

Right x)
I completely forgot that... but I guess we should discuss the implementation anyway... I'm usually in favor of GSL but maybe this model is solvable exactly and should be implemented differently...

Btw @heplesser, is there a document somewhere explaining the new labels? The "C", "I", P" letters are not very explicit to me...

@heplesser
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Silmathoron I will post an explanation of the labels on the Wiki shortly. C: Component, I: Interface, P: Progress, S: Severity, T: Type. The main point of having these letters in front is to make sure that the labels for the different "dimensions" always are in the same (alphabetical) order.

@heplesser
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Silmathoron Any news on this?

@Silmathoron
Copy link
Member

I defend on Tuesday, so I can do this afterwards. Would the GSL version be okay? (I will not have time to make another)

@heplesser
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Silmathoron Ping!

@Silmathoron
Copy link
Member

@heplesser I assume this means that we go for the GSL version then ;) I'll try to do that tomorrow

@Silmathoron
Copy link
Member

Ok, I ended up wasting my day and actually did the propagator version... cheers!

@heplesser heplesser added ZP: PR Created DO NOT USE THIS LABEL and removed ZP: Pending DO NOT USE THIS LABEL labels Apr 10, 2019
@stinebuu
Copy link
Contributor

Fixed by #1169.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) S: Normal Handle this with default priority T: Enhancement New functionality, model or documentation ZC: Model DO NOT USE THIS LABEL ZP: PR Created DO NOT USE THIS LABEL
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants