On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree that they are different geometrically, and in PyLith we >> make Labels to >> distinguish, which I think is the right way. > > > Cool. Of course you have to create the labels somehow. Do you currently make > labels for all the "sidesets" in the mesh you load (e.g., from exodus)?
Yep. > Labels in their current form seem to do two things (denote sets and > associate values with points in those sets). Don't you frequently want one > or the other? Well, you have to designate the set with something. The easiest thing to use is an integer, so I use that. This is the only value associated with the set, so I would say Labels really only make sets. >> >> > Fine, I care much more about conceptual simplicity in the interface. I >> > think >> > adoption will be higher if 95% of users don't see the word "stratum". >> >> Note that this will have to be set explicitly somehow, since you cannot >> "tell" >> from the DAG that something has a given dimension/co-dim. > > > Are your points not sorted by dimension? (Most of the code I've seen in the > examples assumes homogeneous strata.) Exactly, they are sorted by strata, not dimension. Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener
