On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I am not sure I understand. Labels just define point sets. If you want >> to segregate point >> sets by dimension, that is fine. Nothing in the interface is sensitive >> to this, nor should it be. > > > I can think of only one way in which numbering points by stratum versus > dimension makes a tangible difference: whether contiguous ranges can contain > unsorted mixed-dimensional points. I want to understand whether this is > actually important and whether there is a different use case that is > important. If not, then we could entirely discard the concept of stratum, > sort points by co/dimension, and query based on labels. > > Where is stratum as a concept irreplaceable?
I cannot say off the top of my head. It is very convenient to have the breadth-first levels of the graph done this way, and it is also nice for loops, but I know you are arguing that people more often write loops over dimension. >> >> >> >> >> You don't need coordinates for interpolation? >> > >> > >> > Are we talking about the same interpolation? If I have cell-to-vertex >> > connectivity, I can create the faces without coordinates, yes. >> >> Ah, we are not. Mesh interpolation. >> >> The way I have done interpolation, you have to know the mesh dimension, >> DMComplexGetDimension(), and then it assumes that height 0 stuff is cells >> of that dimension. > > > Then we're basically identifying stratum with dimension, suggesting that we > should be able to remove stratum from the API in favor of co/dimension. The is one operation that I do not yet know how to do outside of this. This may be ignorance. 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
