-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 230
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
Extend PCS format #83
Comments
Yes, I'm working on it. The ordinal parameters are the only ones missing in the new version right now . I'm going to talk to Stefan about that today and send a pull request afterwards. |
I'm not sure if Marius only means the ordinal parameters, but also the new conditions etc. @mlindauer I thought the ACLIB standard is not yet final/official, that's at least what I understand from your comment on PR #45. Since the SMAC and AClib2.0 specification are different, it would be good to know what exactly you mean. |
Here a summary of the format:
|
Some more questions?
|
No
No key words such as Conditionals or Forbiddens, but the file should be in the following order: 1. parameters, 2. conditionals, 3. forbiddens
I don't know. |
Just merged #132, this should by done now. |
Hi experts, |
Hi, First of all, please don't re-open old issues where you were not involved in. Furthermore, closed issues are not shown in the issue overview and thus, we will loose track for these. So, please open a new issue ticket and provide all required details. Best, |
Hi,
we (i.e., Frank, Holger, Kevin, Thomas, Manuel and I) extensively discussed at the Dagstuhl seminar, that
the new pcs format (see AClib 2.0 format spec or the latest SMAC pcs format) will be the standard in AClib in the near future.
Therefore, I think, it will be also crucial to support it in SMAC3.
Irace does already support it.
Best,
Marius
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: