You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@thomassargent30 was trying to download files from QuantEcon.applications and the current dependency fetcher doesn't seem to be able to do this easily.
It might be useful to do the following two things:
Currently, the function takes a deps argument because it helps you get to the dependency folder of QuantEcon.Notebooks. In line 73 of the function it joins the repo, raw, deps, and other arguments together. It might make sense to remove the deps argument altogether (or rename it to be folder) and just require people to use the dictionary approach when getting files from QuantEcon.Applications... There could be a few other possible solutions to this, but I think the current design prevents the code from being able to fetch files from other repositories (which I think was one of the goals).
Write some examples of how this function works.
Both of these seem like relatively easy tasks? Do we have any newer members of the team that might be capable of doing this?
Maybe @mmcky has some design thoughts to fix this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@thomassargent30 was trying to download files from
QuantEcon.applications
and the current dependency fetcher doesn't seem to be able to do this easily.It might be useful to do the following two things:
deps
argument because it helps you get to the dependency folder ofQuantEcon.Notebooks
. In line 73 of the function it joins therepo
,raw
,deps
, and other arguments together. It might make sense to remove thedeps
argument altogether (or rename it to befolder
) and just require people to use the dictionary approach when getting files fromQuantEcon.Applications
... There could be a few other possible solutions to this, but I think the current design prevents the code from being able to fetch files from other repositories (which I think was one of the goals).Both of these seem like relatively easy tasks? Do we have any newer members of the team that might be capable of doing this?
Maybe @mmcky has some design thoughts to fix this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: