>> The reason for this is compatibility with MRST, which has the same >> convention. >> >> Time to cut that umbilical?
>I think no, for at least two reasons. > >1. By this time, the convention is used throughout a lot of code, and >abandoning it would be quite a bit of work. I do not like the convention very >much >myself, but refactoring this would probably be painful. Well this concrete problem not withstanding we can not as a general approach shy away from painful refactorings, as time goes by they will only become more painful. On the contrary I think the day you realize: "This is going to be painful to refactor ..." is exactly the day you should start doing it. > >2. Making it harder to use OPM from MRST is a very bad idea in my opinion. Now - with a massive disclaimer for all my ignorance I do not understand this; do you need in-memory equality of grid formats to be able to have cooperation between OPM and MRST? I am not the one to judge the cost, but as Markus work shows this MRST compatibility comes with a price. Joakim _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message.Thank you _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
