On Nov 20, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 00:01, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > 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. > > Okay, this thing I need denotes a subset of the usual "local Vec". You > introduced "global IS" to denote subsets of the global Vec so I think my > calling it "local IS" is entirely consistent. I tend to think of the > relations in the sense of > > (global Vec, global IS) induces, via the "local" operation, (local Vec, > local IS) > > rather than > > (global Vec, local Vec) induces, via the "get IS" operation, (global IS, > local IS) > > although this diagram commutes with a suitable ISLocalToGlobalMapping. > > I would like to rename your DMCompositeGetGlobalIndices to > DMCompositeGetISLocalToGlobalMappings (and make it return > ISLocalToGlobalMappings, obviously). Since the function was never called > (never declared in a public header), I can't imagine this will inconvenience > anyone.
Fine. > > BTW, that function currently uses a PFIDENTITY hack which is really gross if > the user gets crazy and uses single precision, I'll make it use integer > arithmetic. > > Jed
