&EXT_RESTART logic reversal

[Axel]

hi teo,

this is excellent. thanks a lot.
i like the commit message. ;-)

ciao,
   axel.

On Sep 15, 6:07 am, Teodoro Laino <teodor... at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.