Re: [Meep-discuss] PyMeep - possible progress_interval bug?

[Ian Sage]

Thanks, Chris.

Ian


On 15/01/18 15:00, Chris Hogan wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Thanks for catching this. I've fixed it in PR#170. 
>
>


___
meep-discuss mailing list
meep-discuss@ab-initio.mit.edu
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss

Re: [Meep-discuss] PyMeep - possible progress_interval bug?

[Chris Hogan]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for catching this. I've fixed it in PR#170.

As a temporary workaround, you can adjust the progress_interval after
constructing the Simulation object but before calling any run functions
like this:

sim=mp.Simulation(cell_size=cell,
  sources=[source1, source2],
  boundary_layers=pml,
  resolution=res,
  force_complex_fields=True,
)

sim.progress_interval = 100

Thanks,

Chris

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Ian Sage  wrote:

> In my hands, using the 5th Jan development code commit on Arch Linux, an
> error:
>
> TypeError: __init__() got an unexpected keyword argument
> 'progress_interval'
>
> results, if I include an assignment to progress_interval in the
> simulation definition:
>
> sim=mp.Simulation(cell_size=cell,
>   sources=[source1, source2],
>   boundary_layers=pml,
>   resolution=res,
>   force_complex_fields=True,
>   progress_interval=100
> )
>
> All is well if I comment out that line & the preceding comma.
>
> Is this a bug or does it need a different syntax?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian
>
>
> ___
> meep-discuss mailing list
> meep-discuss@ab-initio.mit.edu
> http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss
___
meep-discuss mailing list
meep-discuss@ab-initio.mit.edu
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss