Gaurav Arya

Sounds good, I'll get to it Friday/Saturday

For the arguments change, are you referring to #143 or something else? Because #143 should be totally backwards compatible -- it gives SciMLOperators the flexibility to accept keyword arguments, but...

I thought the conclusion was that this is not needed? If one really wanted to make a nonlinear op a SciMLOperator, then it should still do nothing on `update_coefficients` and...

And in this design, if you were to write `A * A * B`, `A` would be updated two different times with different u's. So I still maintain that u...

Hey, I'd be happy to help, but: I don't think I agree this is a mistake? Shouldn't `u` be the state of current solution in OrdinaryDiffEq? And in general, something...

I think I kind of see where you're coming from, but it still does seem weird to me to represent arbitrary nonlinear operators through this weird back and forth between...

We should also handle #57 when doing this -- I think it's an important issue. But the current version looks good enough to start propagating through SciML, so we can...

This was resolved in https://github.com/SciML/OrdinaryDiffEq.jl/pull/1917