DOC: #904

[mstekiel]

Description

Updating multifit example based on discussion #904

Type of Changes

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Refactoring / maintenance
• Documentation / examples

Tested on

Python: 3.9.15 (main, Nov 24 2022, 14:39:17) [MSC v.1916 64 bit (AMD64)]

lmfit: 1.2.2, scipy: 1.9.1, numpy: 1.23.5, asteval: 0.9.29, uncertainties: 3.1.7

Verification

Have you

• included docstrings that follow PEP 257?

• referenced existing Issue and/or provided relevant link to mailing list?

• verified that existing tests pass locally?

• verified that the documentation builds locally?

• squashed/minimized your commits and written descriptive commit messages?

• added or updated existing tests to cover the changes?
• updated the documentation and/or added an entry to the release notes (doc/whatsnew.rst)?
• added an example?

[newville]

@mstekiel Thanks! I think would make two requests:

a) use pre-commit to find some recommended (ok, slightly required) styling changes.
b) make this very nice example be a separate file from the existing version. That is, let's have both a Model-based version and a minimzer-based version.

[reneeotten]

b) make this very nice example be a separate file from the existing version. That is, let's have both a Model-based version and a minimzer-based version.

I'd be in favor of keeping it in one example file - both approaches can be shown/compared in one file.

Also please write a meaningful commit message and you can probably close the discussion topic by adding, the following line to the body of the commit message:

Closes: #904

[newville]

@mstekiel @reneeotten Do you think it would be too long to show both ways in one file? It's kind of long as it is.

The objective function is a little different, even if the numerical results are the same.

Having both ways in one file would be OK, but I don't think we should replace the existing example with one use Model and then having to unpack and recombine that in an objective function.

[reneeotten]

@mstekiel @reneeotten Do you think it would be too long to show both ways in one file? It's kind of long as it is.

The objective function is a little different, even if the numerical results are the same.

Having both ways in one file would be OK, but I don't think we should replace the existing example with one use Model and then having to unpack and recombine that in an objective function.

@newville I see your point; having two files is fine!

[mstekiel]

pre-comit doesn't work for me. It has some problems with the ssl library. I tried to solve it, but didn't manage.

The example is there, you may want to make the commit yourselves and close this pull request.