Not a bad idea... But it feels counterintuitive when you are calling
add_variable()... Personally it would feel backward.
That said I'm not against the idea.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Tim Kroeger <tim.kroeger@...
> Dear Derek/Roy,
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Derek Gaston wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Roy Stogner <roystgnr@...
>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG) wrote:
>>> I guess I'd go with a set<unsigned char> (or set<subdomain_t> when
>>> ever get around to that), but with the special understanding in the
>>> code that an empty set means "put this variable everywhere". I
>>> think of an efficient way to make that more intuitive but not too
>>> more complex.
>> This gets my vote. I can't see why you would ever want to call
>> add_variable() and have that variable applied _nowhere_... so I
>> think it's
>> ok to infer that an empty set means everywhere.
> Just an idea from me: What about the other way around: You use a
> set<subdomain_t> that specifies all the subdomains on which the
> variable is *not* added. Then, an empty set naturally corresponds
> to adding the variable everywhere.
> Best Regards,
> Dr. Tim Kroeger
> tim.kroeger@... Phone +49-421-218-7710
> tim.kroeger@... Fax +49-421-218-4236
> Fraunhofer MEVIS, Institute for Medical Image Computing
> Universitaetsallee 29, 28359 Bremen, Germany