I think you're right. You've outlined a very pragmatic
approach. I think we should run with suggestion.
Good; given the current change in focus I think I will start by properly
internalizing the content of the FAULTS keyword - hopefully MULTREGT will not
come about and rock the boat.
> I agree – we will need to hold on the all six arrays: {MULTX, MULTX-,
> MULTZ, MULTZ-, MULTY, MULTY-}
We may even want to make a slight modification to that scheme and to keep the
multipliers in a single array of arrays, indexed by direction, so that
references look like
mult_[dir][globix]
Certainly; I my main point was that it is not possible to combine the MULTX and
MULTX- keywords in place. Thank you for the views on globIx <-> i,j,k – that
was typically the type of preference opinion I was seeking.
Joakim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the
information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
this message.
Thank you
_______________________________________________
Opm mailing list
Opm@opm-project.org
http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
