Hi Guido, > You mean there is a semantic difference between n_children() and > number_of_children()? Yes.
> I do not think this is really a good idea. But I > agree that we have a problem with naming here. That's true. I did not invent any of those names, number_of_children() was 'always' there and 'n_children' was introduced by Ralf. > I suggest to rename the second function n_active_children(), to be > consistent with the remainder of the library and to avoid confusion. That sounds reasonable. > If I run through all indices from zero to this number, is this what I > plug into neighbor_child_on_subface as second argument? Exactly. Again, you can see this in the step-30 tutorial. Best, Tobias _______________________________________________
