[MITgcm-devel] exf_readparms: EXF_NML_04

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Martin,

I think there is not yet a well defined rule regarding those optional
namelists.
But I would prefer (and would expect) to get the same behavior with
1) with #undef ALLOW_ICEFRONT
and 
2) with useICEFRONT=.FALSE. and with #defined ALLOW_ICEFRONT
same with OBCS (but does this apply to USE_EXF_INTERPOLATION too ?)

Otherwise, I don't know if it will be a good idea to add in our 
verification/*/input*/data.exf
all the potential namelist (even if they are not read, it will not cause
problems) so that in case we add a pkg/option, will still be able to read
data.exf
This is what I would favor regarding data.gmredi, but don't know about 
data.exf

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:12:04PM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
> Dear EXF'lers and other namelisters,
> 
> do we have a general policy for "optional" namelists? For example, the namelist EXF_NML_04 is pretty empty) when USE_EXF_INTERPOLATION is undefined (it contains only idummy, and that is probably the case only because you cannot have empty namelists?). Still it is read. The next namelist (EXF_NML_SGRUNOFF) is alway defined, but only read when ALLOW_ICEFRONT is defined, the same is true for EXF_NML_OBCS.
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense to define and read these namelists, only when the appropriate CPP flags are set? As far as I know it doesn't matter to have extra namelists in a file, that are not read, but it does matter when a namelist is read that contains entries that are not defined (as currently possible with EXF_NML_04).
> 
> What do you think about this?
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel