From: Roy S. <roy...@ic...> - 2012-05-17 14:34:40
|
On Thu, 17 May 2012, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote: > Not necessarily - it may return only constant-type objects to the user. One > idea is that it would just return the address of the node wrapped in an > object that clarifies the intent. So in that case there is no more memory > required in the underlying mesh than currently required. This is nice memory wise (and unlike Derek, I do shudder at the idea of adding more bytes-per-node), but then there's no way to safely pass nodes from one processor to another without losing that identification. Static ids are much preferable to that. --- Roy |