Remove check for occurrences of multiple pre-post synapses #306
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This check is only required when one of the `SynapticPathway` objects of the `Synapses` object does not use atomics and has synaptic effect mode `target`. Since we use atomics by default now, I removed the check. If we ever want to be able to not use atomics, we need to reactivate the multi occurrence check here accordingly (see comments in code of this commit).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This check is only required when one of the
SynapticPathwayobjects of theSynapsesobject does not use atomics and has synaptic effect modetarget. Since we use atomics by default now, I removed the check. If we ever want to be able to not use atomics, we need to reactivate the multi occurrence check here accordingly (see comments in code of this commit).This partially closes #88 (not sure about the random number generation though, so I'm keeping that open).