On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Sébastien Morin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ed, > > These news concerning the minimization of model "m0" are reassuring. I > agree with you that keeping this behaviour is better than trying to change > it and potentially introducing bugs... However, I would agree if a small > change would be made so the error message says the user that, in this > special case of "m0", the error is normal.
This would be useful, but would be hard to introduce. Maybe a RelaxWarning in the model-free minimise() method would be the best, when the param_vector array is of length 0? But the minimise() method must be fully executed to get the final statistics, specifically the chi-squared value. > Also, and more concerning, is the apparent break in the monte carlo > simulations... Please see the second message in the bug report (11454) where > I explain that the log file for any given simulation stops after > encountering the "m0" problem even though the results file seems to contain > the simulations results for every residue... This is quite strange and I'm > afraid that the simulations might be affected... Do you think that the > simulations for residues after the "m0" problem will be fine ? If so, why > isn't there anything in the logs concerning residues following the first > "m0" problem..? As for this break, I'm not sure what is happening. I don't know if this is related, so this will require a bit of investigation. The m0 simulations should be fine, but the break is still a bit of a worry. For models other than m0, these are in different runs, so should not be affected by what happened with m0 (note the should, there is a possibility that it is). Regards, Edward _______________________________________________ relax (http://nmr-relax.com) This is the relax-devel mailing list relax-devel@gna.org To unsubscribe from this list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, visit the list information page at https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel
