> On Aug 2, 2017, at 3:47 AM, Lisandro Dalcin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2 August 2017 at 03:29, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Emil Constantinescu <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there are situations in which you want to do a certain number of
>>> fixed steps.
>>
>> Really, I think users ALWAYS want to get to a particular time; it is only
>> due to flaws in the software that they may think they need to (or due need
>> to) control things with a fixed number of steps.
>>
>
I am fine with having it stop on either max steps or final time. I do think
final time is the most natural one for the vast majority of users and should be
emphasized in examples over max steps.
> I use it quite a lot while debugging the setup of new simulations. We
> also have TSEvent, users may handle termination within event handling.
> Sometimes I don't care at all about a precise final time, I just want
> to get a bunch of VTK files to look at how the solution evolves.
>
> As long as you know that you don't have an infinite iteration, either
> by setting max_steps OR max_time, we should happily start integration.
> Why should the library enforce unneeded safety policies to power users
> to prevent mistakes from beginners? Why the library should
> second-guess user's intentions?
>
>
> --
> Lisandro Dalcin
> ============
> Research Scientist
> Computer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences & Engineering (CEMSE)
> Extreme Computing Research Center (ECRC)
> King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)
> http://ecrc.kaust.edu.sa/
>
> 4700 King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
> al-Khawarizmi Bldg (Bldg 1), Office # 0109
> Thuwal 23955-6900, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
> http://www.kaust.edu.sa
>
> Office Phone: +966 12 808-0459
