David Bold

Thanks for the review @ZedThree, I have updated everything :+1:

It seems std::variant is broken with old gcc versions? I guess that we should delay this move for now? It might also be good to check with intel compilers by...

@ZedThree @bendudson is there something I can do to help move this along? A re-review would be great!

> Change `BoundaryRobin` to take account of grid spacing, so now the derivative coefficient passed in (`b`) does not have to include dx or dy. Effectively derivative in boundary condition...

If you are not sure, could you not mention that at all? Having wrong documentation is IMO way more confusing then no documentation. I don't think BOUT++ generally makes any...

@johnomotani do you still intend to follow up on this?

> @dschwoerer The aim of this work is to ensure that `Coordinates` is always correct, and that modifications to the metric are correctly and automatically propagated to the derived quantities,...

> I want to make sure we get the features in this PR correct first, and then look at the wrappers. There's some non-obvious pitfalls that proxy classes can go...

On 3/19/24 16:13, Peter Hill wrote: > I want to make sure we get the features in this PR correct first, and > then look at the wrappers. So this...

Just to clarify: This is still WIP? Could you please give a heads up when this is ready for review?