[petsc-dev] PetscSection

[Jed Brown]

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?


> >>
> >> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20121110/b2c42c63/attachment.html>