|
From: | Marco Vassallo |
Subject: | Re: [Patch] fem-fenics patches |
Date: | Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:37:48 +0000 |
I actually don't like these changes, or rather the phylosophy behind them.
On 4 Mar 2014, at 13:22, Marco Vassallo <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I've attached my modified source file so that one can read the code more
>> easily, though. Hope this helps!
>
> Yes thanks it is easier now. I've just pushed the two patches you submitted.
I would suggest to back them up.
There is good reasons why we want to stick to a syntax that is as close
as possible to other FEnics interfaces (either C++ or python).
Current FEnics API's come with very extensive and detailed (and quite lengthy)
documentation, e.g.:
http://fenicsproject.org/documentation/tutorial/index.html
http://fenicsproject.org/book/index.html#book
Unless we want to repeat the tremendous effort required to produce those docs
we should really make any effort possible to stick to a compatible syntax
in order to make it as straightforward as possible to switch from python to Octave API
seamlessly.
Even if that costs the effort of giving a little more thought on a change before
pushing it.
In this particular case, a change that would preserve the compatibility AND allow
the convenience of vectorization, is to allow the syntax:
eval (FUNC, P)
where, if P is a matrix, evaluation is done by iterating through its columns.
This would also allow, for example, interpolating to the nodes of a new mesh
by simply doing:
f = eval (FUNC, new_mesh.p);
I don't think we should , we are planning a new project to improve fem-fenics, rather than
> I wait for the problem with the configure.ac file to be fixed and then I prepare a new release.
> Thanks for your help.
rush into making a new release just now I think this is the time to sit and plan the future
package
> Marco
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |