>> It's up to Ben (don't look a gift horse in the code he's writing for
>> you, or something like that), but to me this sounds like the best idea
>> so far.
>
> Well, I'm not looking a gift horse in anything for this situation
> because I won't be using this functionality in the near future. I wa
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Roy Stogner wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
>
>> Well, that's a good point. What about using a pointer to std
>> then a let a NULL pointer mean "all subdomains"? I (as a user) would
>> prefer this because it does not re-define the meaning of something that
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
>>
>>> Just an idea from me: What about the other way around: You use a
>>> set that specifies all the subdomains on which the variable
>>> is *not* added. Then, an e
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Roy Stogner wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
>
>> Just an idea from me: What about the other way around: You use a
>> set that specifies all the subdomains on which the variable is
>> *not* added. Then, an empty set naturally corresponds to adding the
>> va
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
> Just an idea from me: What about the other way around: You use a
> set that specifies all the subdomains on which the variable is
> *not* added. Then, an empty set naturally corresponds to adding the variable
> everywhere.
I thought about this, but
Dear Derek/Roy,
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Derek Gaston wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG) wrote:
>>
>> I guess I'd go with a set (or set when we
>> ever get around to that), but with the special understanding in the
>> code th
Not a bad idea... But it feels counterintuitive when you are calling
add_variable()... Personally it would feel backward.
That said I'm not against the idea.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Tim Kroeger wrote:
> Dear Derek/Roy,
>
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Derek Gaston wrote:
>
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG) wrote:
>
> I guess I'd go with a set (or set when we
> ever get around to that), but with the special understanding in the
> code that an empty set means "put this variable everywhere". I can't
>
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG) wrote:
> So I have a need to add variables to a system which exist in only
> part of the domain. The natural way to implement it would seem to
> be using subdomain element flags which define what lives where.
>
> Now, for the API...
>
> we currently h
So I have a need to add variables to a system which exist in only part of the
domain. The natural way to implement it would seem to be using subdomain
element flags which define what lives where.
Now, for the API...
we currently have
System::add_variable(name, type)
what do you think abou
10 matches
Mail list logo
