Hi Roland,
> Correct. The volume_forrm computed by Thornburg04 (and also > Thornburg04nc I would guess) differs from the generic one computed > otherswise. > This is something to be discussed with the Llama developers. Thornburg04nc relies on the default behavior, which is why I find it a bit dangerous to have it inconsistent with Thornburg04. I think that Thornburg13 does it like Thornburg04. Maybe there are good reasons to have different behaviors for the volume form with different patch systems, but then again it forces outside code to check for the type of patch system. > Yes, a bug report would be most welcome. Following your advice, I opened one earlier today. > I don't know on top of my head which other (functioning) coordinate > system have overlap between patches. Shouldn't that be done by the concerned patch system anyway, and currently give wrong results if it is not done? > But that's a breaking change in Llama from its current behaviour, so > will need some discussion. Sure, I understand. On that point, I already need to differentiate between Llama and non-Llama runs to fetch or not the volume form, so having different treatments was less of an issue. Best, Jordan
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
