Alexander Condello
Alexander Condello
Hi @rlmstargithub, thanks for the request! We can, and will, update the docs. For the more general request, the main barrier I see is that "mathematically equivalence" is pretty general....
I agree it is inconsistent. Though I find most of the other options unsatisfying. `BinaryModel` seems too general. `BinaryPolynomialModel` feels redundant. I am not opposed to adding some aliases though...
Unfortunately simply changing the name would be a significant backwards compatibility break. The fastest we could change it would be to add an alias for the remainder of the 0.11.x...
Sure did!
Whatever we do, we should also keep in mind SciPy sparse matrices (there is already an issue [for the inverse](https://github.com/dwavesystems/dimod/issues/605)).
I like the explicitness, plus it avoids the weirdness of ``` f = open('test.bqm') f2 = bqm.to_file(f) assert f is f2 ``` though of course we do use that pattern...
Relevant to this discussion, worth noting that unlike `BQM.to_file()`, `json.dump` does _not_ seek back to the beginning. So ```python import io import json with io.StringIO() as f: json.dump({'a': 1}, f)...
The inconsistent behaviour comes from problems parsing the vartype input, this is fixed by #551. For the documentation, we do use the "substitution" method. I agree the documentation should call...
I have not been able to reproduce, I always get `Variables([3, 4, '3*4', 1, 2, '1*2'])`. What version of Python/dimod are you using?
Agree, we should have one.