Dear Andreas,

thanks for this comment. So this issue is obsolete :-).
I agree that upgrading to current PyNN is desirable.

Regards,

Thomas


Zitat von Andreas Stoeckel <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hello Thomas,
>
>> I added a bug report to github:
>> https://github.com/electronicvisions/PyNN/issues/1 You are right,
>> the neuron indices should be consistent to the "PyNN standard".
> as Eric already pointed out, the behaviour follows the PyNN standard
> for version 0.6 -- this a bit nonsensical specification issue was
> ironed out with PyNN version 0.7 (which all other backends implement
> now).
>
> So updating to PyNN version 0.8 would be the preferred solution to
> this bug ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the KIP-SPIKEY-USERS list, click the following link:
> http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?TICKET=NzM1OTI3IHRob21hcy5wZmVpbEBLSVAuVU5JLUhFSURFTEJFUkcuREUgS0lQLVNQSUtFWS1VU0VSU8swjhh5Ey2w&c=SIGNOFF

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the KIP-SPIKEY-USERS list, click the following link:
https://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=KIP-SPIKEY-USERS