[ET Trac] [Einstein Toolkit] #713: Implement "Conformal Covariant Z4" formulation in McLachlan

[Einstein Toolkit]

#713: Implement "Conformal Covariant Z4" formulation in McLachlan
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
  Reporter:  barry.wardell          |       Owner:        
      Type:  enhancement            |      Status:  review
  Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:        
 Component:  EinsteinToolkit thorn  |     Version:        
Resolution:                         |    Keywords:        
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Comment (by barry.wardell):

 Thanks for the patch. I have a few comments:

 1. I'm not sure if it's wise to use a built-in function (Zeta) for a
 variable name. This might be fine but it seems possible that there could
 be unintended consequences at some point. For example,
 Attributes[Zeta]={Listable,NumericFunction}, which I could imagine causing
 different behavior in some circumstances. Some alternatives could be:
 \[CapitalZeta], Z4, Zeta4.

 2. Why did you remove the Theta terms from the dot[alpha] and dot[A]
 equations (and also from the convertToADMBase... calculations)?

 3. Why did you remove the Zeta terms from R[la,lb] in the constraints
 calculation?

 4. Would it be better to call the CCZ4Method parameter something more
 generic in case other formulations are added in the future?

 4. This patch currently applies to the master branch. When committing it,
 I would suggest instead applying it to the CCZ4 branch and merging that
 with master. This would give a clear line of history leading back to
 Dana's original version which she tested quite thoroughly.

 5. Do you know if this has any significant effect on performance? For
 example, could the extra code cause instruction cache issues?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.einsteintoolkit.org/ticket/713#comment:3>
Einstein Toolkit <http://einsteintoolkit.org>
The Einstein Toolkit