Re: Naming bits in an mbbiDirect record

[Ralph Lange via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

We're on the same page, good!

Back to the labeling topic.

I have nothing against labels, in fact: I like them, because they make things clearer.

However, I really prefer the "remote access to info() fields" idea, as it doesn't add per-instance memory footprint unless used and it provides a single solution, valid for all records types (including locally developed ones and all those to come).

Once we add labels to mbbiDirect, I can immediately see them in the request pipeline for mbboDirect (labeling command bits), calc (describing the inputs), scalc (same), seq (labeling the steps), select (labeling the inputs), etc etc.

With info() fields remotely accessible, that would all be possible from day one.

Cheers,
~Ralph