Patrick Sanan <patrick.sa...@gmail.com> writes: > Am Mi., 3. Apr. 2019 um 21:26 Uhr schrieb Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org>: > >> Patrick Sanan via petsc-dev <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> writes: >> >> > I was going to say something similar to Matt; to me it is worth the 1.5x >> > redundancy in the data if I can just view the output file with "doing >> > anything special". I have also done something similar to what you're >> > describing with save states, and it works fine; weirdly it seems like >> much >> > higher overhead than it is, though. >> >> That overhead for 2D fields isn't a big deal for me, but how would you >> identify that three components should be interpreted as vectors? What >> if they are three chemical concentrations? Plotting as vectors would >> just be confusing in that case. >> > True - I was blinded by my own use case here. > >> >> > Here's what I'd propose: too ugly and convoluted? >> > - If the user has set any custom field names for the DMDA, interpret that >> > to mean that they want to deal with them individually, so use the old >> > behavior (but incorporate Dave's comments on improving the field names) >> > - Otherwise, assume that the user wants the new (current) behavior >> > - Document this stuff as much as possible to try to avoid confusion >> >> I think this sounds good. >> > Cool - I'll set it up.
Patrick, any progress on this?