-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
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
jj2lsj's parity limitation #17
Comments
Lines around " |
Lines 220 and 222 in jj2lsj_code.f90 should be modified. |
Thank you @CYChenFudan! Let's see what @gaigalas thinks! We want to be sure that this works, and does not have an effect on other connected routines such as the radiative transition codes. |
@jongrumer You are welcome. By the way, we also modified the codes to deal with He-like ions (including both 1snl and 2lnl configurations), and the large-scaled transfermation (the indices of array exceeding 2^31). I am wondering how to upload these modifications. |
Ok! Sounds interesting! The standard procedure is to:
It all sounds a bit complicated (if you haven't done it before) but in reality it's actually not that bad. Great to see more people joining the development! I'll come to Shanghai on ASOS, we can discuss more then! Jon |
OK. I'll try. Let's discuss at Shanghai. |
Please help me out with the following error in jj2lsj program Backtrace for this error: Regards |
The ability to run both parities at the same time is addressed in Chen's patch in PR #45. @CYChenFudan Does this patch also include your enhancement for large indices related to the He-calculations you adressed in the comment above? Or did you decide to leave this for the future? "By the way, we also modified the codes to deal with He-like ions (including both 1snl and 2lnl configurations), and the large-scaled transfermation (the indices of array exceeding 2^31)." |
@jongrumer No, the other enhancements are not yet included in F90-version. We'll find some time for them in the future. |
As highlighted in a recent email by @cffischer,
jj2lsj
crashes on lists with both parities present, and does not print out any warnings ( I think?). Only @gaigalas knows how hard it would be to extend the routine, and how much time it would take. We all have many things to do.I would consider this "enhancement" having relatively low priority, but should nevertheless be adressed at some point.
Maybe a quick solution would be to add a check in
jj2lsj
and stop with an informative warning text for such lists?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: