[MITgcm-devel] removing SEAICE_GET_FORCING ?

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Dimitris,

Does it means that cpp_option: SEAICE_EXTERNAL_FORCING 
will be retired too ? (always think that the less cpp_options
we have, the better it is).
And you want to keep SEAICE_EXTERNAL_FLUXES , right ?

it wound be good to keep a stop (e.g., in seaice_check.F) like this:
#ifndef SEAICE_EXTERNAL_FORCING
    -> write comments
    STOP 
#endif
so that everyone will know that this option is retired.

Also, at the same time, would be good to take the #include "EXF_FIELDS.h"
out off SEAICE_FFIELDS.h , and in the same way, #include "EXF_OPTIONS.h"
could be moved outside SEAICE_OPTIONS.h .

Not directly related to this, I saw an #include "OBCS_OPTIONS.h"
inside SEAICE_OPTIONS.h : it would be better to add explicitely
#include "OBCS_OPTIONS.h" in all the seaice_*.F files that need it
rather than to have those chain of included files (it's much 
more tricky to figure out what is going on with those Options,
have some experience of Makefiles that do not recompile all the *.F
which incude indirectly a ".h" file that I've just changed --
but may-be was the make depend that was not done properly --,
and I never know what seaice S/R really needs to know about OBCS 
options).

Jean-Michel

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:18:49AM -0800, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
> Will anyone complain if I remove SEAICE_GET_FORCING?
> Do I need to announce/ask on the support list first?
> 
> All of the SEAICE_GET_FORCING capability has been available
> for some time within pkg/exf using the useExfYearlyFields flag.
> 
> Removing SEAICE_GET_FORCING would simplify/shorten pkg/seaice code.
> 
> Cast your votes (no reply will be interpreted as a Yea), D.
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at sbcglobal.net>
> 5056 Oakwood Ave, La Canada, CA 91011-2450
> tel/fax: 818-790-6735;   cell: 818-625-6498
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel