On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > I think so. I think Matt wants still to pull "fields" in, as well as > perhaps constraints (for BCs). > > He is wrong, that all belongs in DMs. > I agree, though it may be reasonable to return an IS describing one field, then be able to get the closure with respect to that IS. > > > > Now where do we put the convenience interface of accessing a chunk of > data in a Vec or array? Or does the new IS interface only give use the > index range associated with the block and we as the caller must do the > indexing? (I'm not opposed to the latter. It's slight clutter but removes > more from the inner loop.) > > Accessing from an array? Maybe > > Accessing from a vector? Unlikely since the destroys the hierarchy of > IS below Vec. So that part may need to be in the Vec, maybe > VecGetSection(vec,index tag,is,&values) Good, that also removes dependence on VecGetArray, which I hate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20121109/be3739b8/attachment.html>
