[yt-dev] RFC: Change in behavior for pf.current_time in Enzo frontend

[Matthew Turk]

Okay, seems like this is a pretty big change that we should wait on.
But I definitely want to follow through on this with 3.0.

(Related note: 3.0 should be usable for everything now that does not
require covering grids.)

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed with BS and JO.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree wtih Britton.
>>
>> +1 for 3.0, -1 for 2.x
>>
>> j
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am +1 for yt 3.0, but -1 on changing it for 2.x.  The behavior of
>>> pf.current_time is in the core of a ton of my own analysis and my guess is
>>> that is true for many people.  In my opinion, changes like this that are for
>>> the sake of making things more proper, but break with previous behavior,
>>> should only be made in big version jumps, where in some sense, all bets are
>>> off anyway.
>>> This change will also need to be propagated through to things like the
>>> SimulationTimeSeries.
>>>
>>> Britton
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Right now, amongst the confusing parameters available to an Enzo
>>>> frontend parameter file, we have:
>>>>
>>>> pf["InitialTime"]
>>>> pf.current_time
>>>>
>>>> These two are right now exactly the same.  However, in most/all of the
>>>> other frontends, pf.current_time is (or should be) the actual time in
>>>> seconds.  For Enzo this would mean multiplying by pf["seconds"].
>>>>
>>>> Changing this could adversely affect many user scripts.  However, not
>>>> changing it means we continue with this confusing behavior.  For
>>>> instance, the TimeStamp callback is currently totally incorrect for
>>>> Enzo, but completely correct for FLASH.
>>>>
>>>> Is this an important enough change to overcome the old behavior?  Or
>>>> should this be deferred to 3.0?
>>>>
>>>> [+-][01]
>>>>
>>>> -Matt
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>