Good points; I understand the issue better now. I'm OK with removing this feature.
Jonathan Mizrahi Research Scientist Joint Quantum Institute University of Maryland 301-314-1903 On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Robert Jördens <r...@m-labs.hk> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Jonathan Mizrahi <jmizr...@umd.edu> > 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
