-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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 tergm targets argument #70
Comments
We really shouldn't offer the character functionality at all; we cannot determine what it means in general. Rather than expanding this, the character options should be removed. Same goes for |
Why do you say that? The Operators all have formulas -- and that's what we want to grab, rather than having to type it twice. |
We lack a definition of the formation and dissolution parts of a If the user wants to refer to the same formula more than once, they can assign it to a variable and use the variable name inside an operator and again as the targets/monitor argument. |
@martinamorris , this is one of those hanging conversations. I agree with @chad-klumb in principle that specifying targets and monitored statistics with character strings is clunky and fragile, and I think it would be a good idea to deprecate. However, if there is a lot of interest from the end-user side (i.e., you and @sgoodreau), it might be worth keeping. |
@krivit I guess what I don't understand is why the text parsing that is used for the formula(e) of the |
Can you give a qucik example of what you mean here, i.e. what is an exampe of a call that is currently allowable but would not be with this change? |
as currently written, the docs say:
Presumably any Operator formula can be used as a target. So rather than "formation" and "dissolution" we should probably use the operator names: Form, Persist, Diss, Cross & Change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: