[Dune] New subentity numbering

[Sven Marnach]

Hi Martin,

Martin Nolte schrieb am Fr, 08. Mai 2009, um 16:11:18 +0200:
> obviously, the documentation on the generic geometry stuff is still
> far from perfect. And honestly, neither Andreas nor myself have
> enough time to provide what you guys want. If you don't know what
> something does you can always ask us, but not in this tone.

I actually did not want to address you with my complaints about the
lacking documentation, I wanted to clearly point out that there is a
problem.  For example, most of us (including me) would have been able
to update the mapper.map() documentation, but nobody did.  Of course,
some of the documentation could only be provided by you, so I
understand you felt addressed.  Sorry for that.  I certainly did not
want to offend you.

> The example of the reference element does not hold water, since it
> is a 1:1 clone of the methods of the old one (and they can be
> documented by whoever introduced the (i,c,ii,cc) notation).

The GenericReferenceElement should be documented, be it by just
linking to the old documentation and saying the interface is the
same.  As before, I did not say *you* should do that.

> (and everybody who read the discussion FlySpray tasks knew what this
> change meant)

We just did not expect the change to be as invasive as it turned out
to be.  Again, this is not your fault.  We all agreed on this change.

> So, unless someone has a suggestion for a better generic numbering,
> I would ask him not to mourn about our solution.

Your solution is great, I did not mourn about it.  I just guessed it
might be less work to try to have the old numbering with the new
reference elements than to port the remaining code.  We have to think
about this. Possibly I am wrong.

> 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.

Your mail does not hurt my feelings and it even answers most of the
questions I asked :)  I really did not mean to be destructive.  Please
take my apologies for the tone of the last mail.  I hope this one will
turn out better.

Greetings,
    Sven