On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:04 PM Roy Stogner <royst...@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
> You mean O(1)? ;-) > You mean O(alpha) where alpha is some (possibly large) constant... vs a pointer dereference ;-) > I was about to say that the "minimal interface" for arbitrary > user-defined data *is* "void". > > On the other hand, it would be pretty sweet to require the user to > implement serialize/unserialize methods, and thereby make all our > packed_range stuff continue to work seamlessly even with user data > attached. > I actually didn't want this stuff to be serialized and sent with elements. This is for caching... and should be able to be rebuilt at any time. If we go down this path too far we're going to reimplement MeshData... and all of the problems. And - I didn't want to have to conform to any interface... I might just want it to be a pointer to a raw C array so I can just cast it and access some values instantly. Derek
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
