Feature: passing in nomimal values of uncertainties about jumper.jl HOT 6 CLOSED

This has been bugging me because I've needed this myself. I think you've hit on the problem here though - what if you have multiple points? In fact, this would be the common case I suspect, which might inform how it should be designed.

One API could be this

@defUncs(rm, u[1:2])
addScenario!(rm, [u[1] => 0.0, u[2] => 1.0])
addScenario!(rm, [u[1] => 1.0, u[2] => 0.0])

or

@defUncs(rm, u[1:2])
addScenario!(rm, [(u[1], 0.0), (u[2], 1.0)] )
addScenario!(rm, [(u[1], 1.0), (u[2], 0.0)] )

from jumper.jl.

I have a different solution for the unboundedness issue

from jumper.jl.

What about for setting initial cuts?

Vishal Gupta
PhD Candidate, 2014
Operations Research Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
www.mit.edu/~vgupta1/

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Iain Dunning [email protected]:

I have a different solution for the unboundedness issue

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/25#issuecomment-40915147
.

from jumper.jl.

Thats what I just wrote isn't it?

from jumper.jl.

Sorry, Github emailing me sometimes garbles the order of messages. My fault entirely...

I like the addScenario using dictionaries... Constructing scenarios as arrays of tuples feels like it's going to be cumbersome. The idea of using setValue was just to try and mirror the nominal interface as much as possible, but I agree that there isn't a ton of upside in it. The addScenario description seems much more usable.

Could it be written in a way that one could call it from within generateCut????

from jumper.jl.

It could... but I don't like it on first thought because it confuses the intent a bit... probably need to implement it and see how it feels.

from jumper.jl.