-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Spherical #203
Spherical #203
Conversation
w1[gap_index, nu_index] | ||
* ( | ||
( | ||
source[gap_index + 1, nu_index] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some explanatory comments regarding the indices here would be nice. Or an equation reference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The equation reference is in the docstring. I think I didn't actually end up changing the raytracing equation other than not attentuating the ray for 0 optical depth. The rest of the equation just looks so different because black decided to format it differently this time for some reason I don't quite understand.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On the note of indices though, do you think nu_index and gap_index aren't descriptive enough? I thought the names would be enough because they keep track of the gap in depth points you're moving past, or the frequency you're working on. But I've also been staring at this equation for months so I might be blind to it being unclear.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, must have missed it in the docstring. The black formatting probably doesn't help either. The index names seem okay, though "gap" is not entirely clear to me. So you could either add the above as a descriptive comment, or find an alternative name.
I would just merge #212 instead of this. |
Somewhat working spherical geometry. Still needs validation/tests