[Dune] New subentity numbering

[Christian Engwer]

Hi Martin,

> In case this e-mail hurts somebodies feelings, I want to apologize in advance.
> The destructive criticism of the previous mails is not easy to take, if you
> respect the opinion the authors.

I can only speek for my self, but I doubt that Sven intendet his email
to be destructice. There was ne goal to be acieved with te new
numbering, namely to be generic. We discussed how to achieve this and
we agreed that it must be in a way such that the user doesn't break
his code without knowing and such that the user would have to change a
few places as possible.

Now for the first part, we all failed misserably. That is not
particularly cour fault, we all could have helped in improving the
documentation, we find it lacking. But I also must state that the
amount of work is bigger than I'd expected during the discussion.

For the second point we realized during the transition of code in
Heidelberg, that it is easy to miss a point where the numbering
changed and end up with valid code, but wrong results. I'm sure you
made similar experience.

Currently we have a bad situation and I'm not sure what is the best
solution, but still I think it is a valid to discuss this situation.

I wouldn't like to get rid of the generality again, but I also fear
the trouble that is still lying in front of us and that that's coming
after a release.

Lastly I'd like to say, you are right that there is no use just
moaning. Either there is a working generic algorithm, or everything
has to stay as it is. But this still doesn't answer the (my) question:
"should we consider switching to yet an other numbering (before the
release) which is consistent with the existing cube and simplex
numbering, assuming we would find one?"

Please don't take this personal or destructive.

Christian