On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure I understand. Labels just define point sets. If you want > to segregate point > sets by dimension, that is fine. Nothing in the interface is sensitive > to this, nor should it be. > I can think of only one way in which numbering points by stratum versus dimension makes a tangible difference: whether contiguous ranges can contain unsorted mixed-dimensional points. I want to understand whether this is actually important and whether there is a different use case that is important. If not, then we could entirely discard the concept of stratum, sort points by co/dimension, and query based on labels. Where is stratum as a concept irreplaceable? > >> > >> You don't need coordinates for interpolation? > > > > > > Are we talking about the same interpolation? If I have cell-to-vertex > > connectivity, I can create the faces without coordinates, yes. > > Ah, we are not. Mesh interpolation. > > The way I have done interpolation, you have to know the mesh dimension, > DMComplexGetDimension(), and then it assumes that height 0 stuff is cells > of that dimension. > Then we're basically identifying stratum with dimension, suggesting that we should be able to remove stratum from the API in favor of co/dimension. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20121110/b2c42c63/attachment.html>