<html>#2735: EinsteinBase: storage declaration simplification
<table style='border-spacing: 1ex 0pt; '>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Reporter:</td><td>Samuel Cupp</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Status:</td><td>new</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'>Milestone:</td><td>ET_2023_11</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Version:</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Type:</td><td>enhancement</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Priority:</td><td>trivial</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'>Component:</td><td>EinsteinToolkit thorn</td></tr>
</table>
<p>Comment (by Roland Haas):</p>
<p>Well. It’s historic (not surprisingly). Being able to use variables in the storage statement is newer than ADMBase is, and I am not sure if</p>
<div class="codehilite"><pre><span></span><span class="n">STORAGE</span><span class="o">:</span> <span class="n">lapse</span><span class="o">[</span><span class="mi">0</span><span class="o">]</span>
</pre></div>
<p>would have been acceptable (since one could just leave out the statemetnt altogether without loss if only constants are allowed anyway).</p>
<p>I think there are parameter files out there that want storage for lapse but not for dtlapse (eg lapse for output only and dtlapse is not desired). If storage was enabled for dtshift then this will consume more memory (probably not too bad) and also (more importantly) subjuect dtshift to poisoning, and consistency checks by presync which may (if sufficiently aggressive options are chosen) make the code stop.</p>
<p>So the ugly way of disabling storage by setting “initial_shift” to “none” probably has to stay.</p>
<p>--<br/>
Ticket URL: <a href='https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/tickets/issues/2735/einsteinbase-storage-declaration'>https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/tickets/issues/2735/einsteinbase-storage-declaration</a></p>
</html>