[MITgcm-devel] [MITgcm-cvs] MITgcm/doc CVS Commit

[Dimitris Menemenlis]

Starting to look into this.  Good suggestions!
I was mostly lazy and scared of breaking adjoint, but obviously
I managed to do that even with the CPP OPTIONS,
so not a very good excuse :-(

First, I will try to fix the adjoint problem.
Next I will change names to add "SPONGE" as suggested.
And third I will add runtime parameters ... if I can do so without breaking the adjoint.

Dimitris Menemenlis

On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi Dimitris,
> 
> I am curious why we have to add CPP options (11 more) instead of
> run-time parameters, which is generally a better solution.
> Is it motivated by Adjoint issues ? (seems to me that, regarding adjoint,
> skipping some parts should work the same way as when every is used).
> 
> The other thing is regarding names: 
> #define ALLOW_OBCS_U_AT_NS
> #define ALLOW_OBCS_U_AT_EW
> #define ALLOW_OBCS_V_AT_NS
> #define ALLOW_OBCS_V_AT_EW
> and
> #undef USE_OBCS_LINEAR
> I am concerned that OBCS_SPONGE options that are named without the word 
> "SPONGE" could be confusing (interpreted as a general OBCS options instead
> of sponge only).
> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel