Jed,

   Just pick what you want, but if you do use "local" then it should match the 
use of "local" in other parts of PETSc (for example a local Vec is a ghosted 
"part" of a global Vec). For example, if you suddenly starting calling 
unghosted sequential Vec parts of a global Vec it would be confusing. So just 
use your judgement, I can't tell what you are asking half the time so don't 
always expect a coherent response.

   Barry

On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Jed Brown wrote:

> Your function is returning objects with global semantics (they live on the 
> global comm). The other local functions return objects that are semantically 
> serial, although they may be logically part of something bigger. But why 
> return an IS at all, why not an ISLocalToGlobalMapping? Too many characters?
> 
> I need a name for a local IS that holds indices in a local numbering. This 
> thing has no parallel semantics, just like a local Vec. The term "local IS" 
> is not currently taken, if we don't count you man page. Would it be 
> acceptable to use it for my purpose?
> 
> Jed
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2010 4:15 AM, "Barry Smith" <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > Jed
>> > 
>> > [1] Barry, what is going on with DMCom...
>> 
>>   Looks like code that was started (maybe from cut and paste) and never 
>> finished. The manual page for function has a different name then the 
>> function, like I just stopped in the middle of editing and forgot about it.
>> > The former has no implementation and the
>> > latter has no man page. I do not think that "Local IS"...
>> 
>>   Well no. Local always refers to things with ghost points, while global 
>> means without ghost points. You are asking to introduce another term 
>> "Ghosted" to mean with ghost points.  Confusing/bad to introduce more 
>> terminology.
>> 
>>   Now you could argue that using local and global was bad originally and we 
>> should use ghosted and global (or nonghosted) as our two terms. But 
>> introducing ghosted in just one place is not the solution, we would have to 
>> do it systematically through PETSc source and documentation. Though I think 
>> local and global are fine as is and don't see a need to change from local to 
>> ghosted.
>> 
>>  Or I could be misunderstanding what you want to change.
>> 
>>   Barry
>> 
> 


Reply via email to