Make nel_1d mean what it says

[majosm]

The n parameter in generate_regular_rect_mesh is the number of points in 1D, so nel_1d is currently kind of misnamed. This PR fixes it.

[MTCam]

A thousand thumbs up on this, but: shouldn't it be renamed to npts_1d instead of left as nel_1d just to be corrected at the call sites where it's used?

Edit: My thinking is that instead of actually changing all the grids, that the grids can be left the same. The grid interface actually expects the argument to be num points, so I find that leaving the variable named nel_1d is still misleading.

[inducer]

Whoops! I feel (at least partly) responsible here. Thanks @majosm for cleaning this up! (Could you do the same in the grudge and meshmode examples, if that's not asking too much?) FWIW I agree with @MTCam that renaming the variable to npts_1d is probably better.

[majosm]

I still like thinking of the problem size in terms of numbers of elements instead of points. It makes it easier to multiply the mesh resolution. Also makes code like this simpler (from #272):

 nel_1d_0 = 5
 for hn1 in [1, 2, 3, 4]:

-    nel_1d = hn1 * (nel_1d_0 - 1) + 1
-    h = 1/(nel_1d-1)
+    nel_1d = hn1 * nel_1d_0
+    h = 1/nel_1d

If the +1s are awkward, could we possibly add an nel= parameter to generate_regular_rect_mesh (and then maybe deprecate n=?)?

[inducer]

I still like thinking of the problem size in terms of numbers of elements instead of points.

Actually, that's a fair point.

If the +1s are awkward, could we possibly add an nel= parameter to generate_regular_rect_mesh (and then maybe deprecate n=?)?

I like that idea! We could (not saying we should) offer npts= and nel= to make the interface clearer. Or just nel. It's not like it's hard to convert.

[MTCam]

I still like thinking of the problem size in terms of numbers of elements instead of points.

Actually, that's a fair point.

If the +1s are awkward, could we possibly add an nel= parameter to generate_regular_rect_mesh (and then maybe deprecate n=?)?

I like that idea! We could (not saying we should) offer npts= and nel= to make the interface clearer. Or just nel. It's not like it's hard to convert.

+1's to everything here (even if it's awkward). I also prefer to think about number of elements, and would love it to have this distinction acknowledged by the interface.

[MTCam]

Still not a giant fan of that it changes the previous grids, but still prefer it over the previous thing.

[inducer]

Thanks!