On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Derek Gaston wrote: > Actually... this would be a good reason to use Roy's suggestion of > "fall-through" parameters.... it would allow you to _optionally_ > override the values at the System level. Of course that would mean > changes to all of the solvers to look at the System level for > parameters.
Exactly. > What we're really talking about here is Parameter polymorphism. More like non-static parameters here; I can't think of any place where we'd actually want to implement a tolerance lookup as anything more sophisticated than "check what the user last set for our tolerance". > Has the idea that we store things like "linear_tolerance" as > parameters outgrown itself? If we had a linearTolerance() virtual > method defined on Systems then it wouldn't be a problem... you would > just ask a system for it's linearTolerance() and it would do the > "right thing". Yeah; I'd have done that long ago if it wasn't for the backwards compatibility issue. For flexibility there's no better solution than Parameters, but for things we know we need we might as well avoid the string lookup. --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
