-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 370
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
Update documentation and refactor comments in iaf_psc_exp current input #2229
Conversation
models/iaf_psc_exp.cpp
Outdated
@@ -248,8 +248,6 @@ nest::iaf_psc_exp::calibrate() | |||
|
|||
const double h = Time::get_resolution().get_ms(); | |||
|
|||
// numbering of state vaiables: i_0 = 0, i_syn_ = 1, V_m_ = 2 | |||
|
|||
// commented out propagators: forward Euler |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The Euler propagators should go. If at all, I would add a remark to the model documentation pointing out that this neuron model differs from the implemented in [1]_ by using exact integration instead of forward Euler.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The comment says:
// commented out propagators: forward Euler
// needed to exactly reproduce Tsodyks network
Perhaps it makes sense for people coming after us to leave this in? We could also wrap it in some preprocessor conditions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am strictly against leaving commented-out code in. Anyone with a minimal understanding of Euler's method should be able to re-Eulerize the code if they want to (we should put a remark into the model doc). Compiler switches are too cumbersome, since we'd need to propagate them from the CMake level. The only alternative I would consider would be a runtime switch in the model, similar to the consistent_integration
switch in the Izhikevich model.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, just a couple of phrases to clear up
Co-authored-by: jessica-mitchell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jessica-mitchell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jessica-mitchell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jessica-mitchell <[email protected]>
…af_psc_exp_current_in
Co-authored-by: jessica-mitchell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jessica-mitchell <[email protected]>
…af_psc_exp_current_in
@heplesser, @jessica-mitchell: thanks for the comments! I updated the code, could you have another look? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@clinssen thanks! lgtm
Fixes #1226.
The meaning of the
i_syn_exp_
was left unchanged, but a warning about its meaning was added in two places in the documentation.