[CP2K:240] Re: &EXT_RESTART logic reversal

[Teodoro Laino]

It's in now..

Teo.
On 5 Sep 2007, at 01:27, Axel wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sep 4, 1:30 am, Teodoro Laino <teodor... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good point..  To me, what you propose,  looks like a good compromise:
>>
>> add a RESTART_ALL (default .TRUE.)
>> all other have default .FALSE.
>
> if you implement it like this, i would rename
> this flag to RESTART_DEFAULT as it determines
> the default value for all other restart flags.
> this would also indicate that this flag is evaluated
> first and then the others. RESTART_ALL would make
> more sense, if the default would be .false.
> (ok, i'm nitpicking here, but you'll have to live
> with the choice for a long time, so i think it is
> worth thinking about what people would assume).
>
> ciao,
>    axel.
>
>>
>> In this way nothing changes for people that were used to restart all
>> keywords and if
>> one does not want to do that than need only set the RESTART_ALL
>> to .FALSE. and activate
>> the single ones explicitly..
>>
>> Negative comments?  (if not I will proceed in this way..)
>>
>> teo
>>
>> On 4 Sep 2007, at 03:39, Axel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> hi all!
>>
>>> when playing around with the &EXT_RESTART section over the last
>>> weeks, i was wondering if it would not be more user-friendly to  
>>> change
>>> the default to not restart anything and then only restart those
>>> properties
>>> that are set to .true. explicitely in addition to a RESTART_ALL  
>>> flag.
>>
>>> as it is now, one can get easily confused about what is being
>>> restarted,
>>> and if one only wants to restart a few sections, one has to first  
>>> look
>>> up
>>> _all_ restartable properties (which also change over time) and set
>>> them
>>> all to .false.
>>
>>> what do you think?
>>
>>> cheers,
>>>     axel.
>
>
> >