Hi Matt,
I'm +1 on specifying the DomainSubset interface though subclasses, and it makes
sense to integrate it with selection.
One question I have relating to deposition in particular is whether the spatial fields
are expected to impose any sort of order on the octs they return. If we select a region
including both particles and octs, but the two are completely unordered, matching
one set to the other may be very expensive.
Do the deposition routines already use some organization scheme (oct tree, say) to
match particles to grids?
Doug
On Apr 17, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Matthew Turk
Hi all,
Today in IRC, Chris and I went back and forth on the particle deposition stuff in advance of the meeting next week. My task right now is to come up with spatial field chunking for Octs in a consistent way; of course I'll write this up into the extant YTEP, which will allow for feedback particularly from ARTIO, ART and RAMSES folks, but as a quick first pass I was wondering what everyone thought of:
1) Unifying DomainSubsets into a single object with subclasses 2) Making that new base class a subclass, itself, of YTSelectionContainer
This would mean that this new base class would be very similar to the GridPatch object -- which it already is -- and would implement, most crucially, the __getitem__ accessor pattern. This would return a 2x2x2xNoct field.
[+-][01]? Specifically, Doug, Chris, and SamL?
Sidenote: I discovered that we will not have to rewrite spatial fields that currently work for grids; my understanding of the numpy broadcasting system was not complete, and I didn't realize that this script does *exactly what I want it to.
http://paste.yt-project.org/show/3391/
This means that our Oct spatial fields will be (2+NGZ*2, 2+NGZ*2, 2+NGZ*2, NOCT) shaped. _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org