[Os-project-managers] Consent agenda item: Basis status

[Jun Ma]

I agree. 

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Horand Gassmann" <Horand.Gassmann at dal.ca>
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 10:31 AM
To: <os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org>
Subject: [Os-project-managers] Consent agenda item: Basis status

> Hi guys,
> 
> I think we agreed that the basis status should be stored through an  
> array of index vectors, one for each basis status, and that the  
> different status values should be
> 
> basic
> atLower
> atUpper
> isFree
> superbasic
> unknown
> 
> I would like to propose that the index vector be stored as an  
> IntVector and not a NonNegativeIntVector as in the present draft. The  
> reason is the handling of objective rows. They can have a basis  
> status, but their index values are negative. It seems too cumbersome  
> to have to create both a BasisStatus and an ObjectiveBasisStatus type  
> just for this distinction. I propose that we verify the sign  
> restriction on the indices in code and document in the schema via  
> annotation.
> 
> Agree/Disagree?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> gus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Os-project-managers mailing list
> Os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org
> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/os-project-managers
>