Richard,
Now you are a bit all over the place. Yes of course, things can be
handled in a more nice way if we introduce new features.
ARTS is almost 20 years! When we started ARTS the aim was in fact to use
as few "groups" as possible. And I would say that we kept that rule a
long time, but
Hi Oliver,
I mostly agree with this course of action and your analysis. And I agree
it is not be necessary to introduce a new error type. This was a
suggestion to deal with Patrick's speed concerns. I am more worried about
bad program termination and will not run ARTS with such a flag.
I wish
Hi Patrick,
Den mån 25 mars 2019 kl 19:47 skrev Patrick Eriksson <
patrick.eriks...@chalmers.se>:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I can agree on that this is not always critical for efficiency as long
> as the check is a simple comparison. But some checks are much more
> demanding. For example, the
Hi Richard,
I can agree on that this is not always critical for efficiency as long
as the check is a simple comparison. But some checks are much more
demanding. For example, the altitudes in z_field should be strictly
increasing. If you have a large 3D atmosphere, it will be very costly to
Hi Patrick,
Just some quick points.
Den sön 24 mars 2019 kl 10:29 skrev Patrick Eriksson <
patrick.eriks...@chalmers.se>:
> Hi Richard,
>
> A great initiative. How errors are thrown can for sure be improved. We
> are both lacking such checks (still to many cases where an assert shows
> up
Hi Richard,
A great initiative. How errors are thrown can for sure be improved. We
are both lacking such checks (still to many cases where an assert shows
up instead on a proper error message), and they errors are probably
implemented inconsistently.
When it comes to use try/catch, I leave