On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Jonathan Mizrahi <[email protected]> wrote: >> leads to overhead and is unergonomic/unaesthetic. > > Can you clarify how you find this unaesthetic? From the perspective of an > ARTIQ user, having to check for zero pulse lengths everywhere seems to > create far more unaesthetic programs.
You would obviously not do that every time but inside the pulse() method. The implementation is unaesthetic. And the behavior is not all that obvious and intuitive: close-together events do raise a collision while actual coincident events sometimes do not (depending on the channel and on the event). > I also second Daniel's point -- we often scan pulse durations starting at > zero. Zero length pulses can be worked around. Do you rely on being able to do this: ttl.pulse(1*us) ttl.pulse(1*us) Also, for some perspective, nobody seems to want to set the frequency of a DDS twice at the same time. -- Robert Jördens. _______________________________________________ ARTIQ mailing list https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq
