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
I have to preface this saying that the design of vb_tool was never great to start with. I think that now that we are about to add another mode, hybrid searchlight (check pull #31), we really have to reconsider our approach. My main issue is that there are far too many flags that depend on the specific mode, which can be super confusing.
I propose the following new design:
Each mode will have its own entry point (vb_searchlight, vb_fullbrain, etc)
The existing vb_tool would print a help message explaining the various entry points
A second idea is that we could have something like vb_tool [tool] --flag1 --flag2 (...). I am still in favour of the first one, though.
This would, of course, break backwards compatibility.
Do you think this is a good approach?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I agree ... tend to think option 2 would be optimal.... But happy to discuss. We may also want to scrap the purely surface based approachs if we don't think they give optimal results.
Though I think we should still push the current hybrid approach first and then start thinking about major overhaul later.
On a related note, we need to think about how the GUI can cope with these changes.
I have to preface this saying that the design of
vb_tool
was never great to start with. I think that now that we are about to add another mode, hybrid searchlight (check pull #31), we really have to reconsider our approach. My main issue is that there are far too many flags that depend on the specific mode, which can be super confusing.I propose the following new design:
vb_searchlight
,vb_fullbrain
, etc)vb_tool
would print a help message explaining the various entry pointsvb_tool [tool] --flag1 --flag2 (...)
. I am still in favour of the first one, though.This would, of course, break backwards compatibility.
Do you think this is a good approach?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: