Re: [Getfem-commits] merge request for touched_region_for_projected_fem

[Konstantinos Poulios]

should we also briefly discuss the name of the function? In mathematical terms I would call it

support_region

But a more popularized name might be easier to understand in general. However, I do not like "touched" because "touch" is typically used in programming for denoting change in state, so your current name I understand it as a region that has state A and changes to state B. We could instead call it

intersected_target_region

or something similar. Other ideas?

In general I think we should spend some effort in good names because once a name is in the API it is more difficult to remove.

Best regards

Kostas

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:31 PM Konstantinos Poulios <logari81@googlemail.com> wrote:

Hi Andriy,

Thanks, I see how it can be useful. Could I ask you to reduce the use of auto for this commit? For example it does not make much sense to use auto for bool. In general my preference for the GetFEM codebase is to use auto only if some type is particularly long and makes the code significantly less readable. Otherwise the type of the variables is useful information for people that will read and try to understand the code later.

There is also a typo in a comment. It should be "Gauss".

Best regards

Kostas

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:32 AM Andriy Andreykiv <andriy.andreykiv@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Yves and Konstantinus,

Kind request to review and merge touched_region_for_projected_fem branch.

It introduces a method for projected_fem that extracts a region from the target that is actually touched by the source.

I use this region to integrate my mortar terms on.

Best regards,

                          Andriy