... | ... | @@ -79,6 +79,17 @@ lattice with nearest-neighbor hoppings the connection set would be `{(0, 0), |
|
|
(1, 0), (-1, 0), (0, 1), (0, -1)}`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
##### Footnotes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]: Currently, Symmetries are a uniquely high-level concept in Kwant, and only the action of
|
|
|
the group elements on sites is implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[2]: This is not a very good name, hopefully a better one will be thought up
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## `System` API
|
|
|
Here we define the low-level system API[3].
|
|
|
|
... | ... | @@ -127,6 +138,15 @@ Write this |
|
|
Write this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
##### Footnotes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[3]: Should we actually define everything as arrays straight away to make it easier to
|
|
|
conform to the C system API?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## `kwant.builder.System` Implemetation
|
|
|
|
|
|
The low-level site families will correspond to the high-level site
|
... | ... | @@ -160,6 +180,13 @@ is returned. |
|
|
### Discussion
|
|
|
Write this
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
##### Footnotes
|
|
|
[4]: Or not, see the discussion on implementing RGF
|
|
|
|
|
|
[5]: This is ugly and weird, it should be tweaked. This may require a slight
|
|
|
re-definition of the low-level interface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## C `System` API
|
|
|
Here we define the C low-level system API. Systems implemented in C must conform
|
... | ... | @@ -245,20 +272,3 @@ struct Block_t { |
|
|
```
|
|
|
This would be more transparent. The disadvantage is that we would be subject
|
|
|
to padding, unless we define the structure as `packed`. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
##### Footnotes
|
|
|
[1]: Currently, Symmetries are a uniquely high-level concept in Kwant, and only the action of
|
|
|
the group elements on sites is implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[2]: This is not a very good name, hopefully a better one will be thought up
|
|
|
|
|
|
[3]: Should we actually define everything as arrays straight away to make it easier to
|
|
|
conform to the C system API?
|
|
|
|
|
|
[4]: Or not, see the discussion on implementing RGF
|
|
|
|
|
|
[5]: This is ugly and weird, it should be tweaked. This may require a slight
|
|
|
re-definition of the low-level interface. |