Follow-up from a comment on #540:
|
enum class OutputNameType |
|
{ |
|
outGrp_NA = 500, |
|
outGrp_A = 501, |
|
outGrp_Y = 502, |
|
outGrp_D = 503, |
|
outGrp_I = 504, |
|
outGrp_WSS = 505, |
|
outGrp_trac = 506, |
|
outGrp_vort = 507, |
|
outGrp_vortex = 508, |
|
outGrp_stInv = 509, |
|
outGrp_eFlx = 510, |
|
outGrp_hFlx = 511, |
|
outGrp_absV = 512, |
|
outGrp_fN = 513, |
|
outGrp_fA = 514, |
|
outGrp_stress = 515, |
|
outGrp_cauchy = 516, |
|
outGrp_mises = 517, |
|
outGrp_J = 518, |
|
outGrp_F = 519, |
|
outGrp_strain = 520, |
|
outGrp_divV = 521, |
|
outGrp_Visc = 522, |
|
outGrp_fS = 523, |
|
outGrp_C = 524, |
|
outGrp_I1 = 525, |
|
|
|
out_velocity = 599, |
|
out_pressure = 598, |
|
out_temperature = 597, |
|
out_voltage = 596, |
|
out_acceleration = 595, |
|
out_displacement = 594, |
|
out_integ =593, |
|
out_WSS = 592, |
|
out_traction = 591, |
|
out_vorticity = 590, |
|
out_vortex = 589, |
|
out_strainInv = 588, |
|
out_energyFlux = 587, |
|
out_heatFlux = 586, |
|
out_absVelocity = 585, |
|
out_fibDir = 584, |
|
out_fibAlign = 583, |
|
out_stress = 582, |
|
out_cauchy = 581, |
|
out_mises = 580, |
|
out_jacobian = 579, |
|
out_defGrad = 578, |
|
out_strain = 577, |
|
out_divergence = 576, |
|
out_viscosity = 575, |
|
out_fibStrn = 574, |
|
out_CGstrain = 573, |
|
out_CGInv1 = 572 |
|
}; |
It seems to me that the enum class OutputNameType is actually representing two disjoint sets of non-interchangeable options. In other words, it seems to me that a value of the group outGrp_* would not be valid in a place where a value in the group out_* is expected, and vice versa. Is that correct?
If it is, do you think it would make sense to split this into two distinct enumerations (say, OutputGroup and OutputVariable)? Additionally, do the numeric values attributed to the members of this enumeration matter?
Follow-up from a comment on #540:
svMultiPhysics/Code/Source/solver/consts.h
Lines 319 to 376 in c79af85
It seems to me that the
enum class OutputNameTypeis actually representing two disjoint sets of non-interchangeable options. In other words, it seems to me that a value of the groupoutGrp_*would not be valid in a place where a value in the groupout_*is expected, and vice versa. Is that correct?If it is, do you think it would make sense to split this into two distinct enumerations (say, OutputGroup and OutputVariable)? Additionally, do the numeric values attributed to the members of this enumeration matter?