You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When doing a sweep over the duration of a pulse, users often want to start with a duration of 0. This is currently blocked at the moment the waveform is created (and meaningfully so, as it is undefined in many cases what exactly a waveform with zero duration is).
Ideally, we would not allow the creation of waveforms with zero duration under normal circumstances, but could potentially allow it in the creation of a parametrized sequence. Then, when it were to be added to the sequence, it would raise an warning saying that a pulse of 0 duration doesn't mean anything and just skip it.
I have many reserves about this, as in the end it ends up resulting in a lot of changes and exceptional cases just for convenience in one particular scenario. Nonetheless, I see the value in it, so I think it's worth considering.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When doing a sweep over the duration of a pulse, users often want to start with a duration of 0. This is currently blocked at the moment the waveform is created (and meaningfully so, as it is undefined in many cases what exactly a waveform with zero duration is).
Ideally, we would not allow the creation of waveforms with zero duration under normal circumstances, but could potentially allow it in the creation of a parametrized sequence. Then, when it were to be added to the sequence, it would raise an warning saying that a pulse of 0 duration doesn't mean anything and just skip it.
I have many reserves about this, as in the end it ends up resulting in a lot of changes and exceptional cases just for convenience in one particular scenario. Nonetheless, I see the value in it, so I think it's worth considering.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: