[Breaking] Redefine functions to take symmetries as argument#149
Conversation
|
Your PR no longer requires formatting changes. Thank you for your contribution! |
|
Thank you @borisdevos for pointing out the XY model. I will try to add a test to that. |
|
Test failures are now related to the scalartype being determined by beta for the Ising model. Adding |
…into bd/symmetries
VictorVanthilt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All comments are about also adding the signatures without symmetry types to the docstring explicitly.
One comment is about restricting the eltype of the gross neveu tensor to be <:Complex.
VictorVanthilt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you very much for your contribution. Merging this ASAP.
|
We (Weizhen Jia and I) are working on to study the low-temporature phase of XY model. A precise free energy at the transition point might be available later. |
Things this PR achieves:
functionnameandfunctionname_symmetricfunctions to differ between whether symmetries are used or not. This PR changes this such that only the original non-symmetricfunctionnameremains, but takes a new positional argument that determines the symmetry.E.g.
classical_ising_symmetric(...)becomesclassical_ising(Z2Irrep, ...) = classical_ising(...), where I've also chosen default symmetries to be the maximal symmetry.I made a stylistic choice in this, feel free to chime in on the argument order.
This is very breaking.
EDIT: some things have been added during the lifetime of this PR: