dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anders Logg wrote:
> The idea was that one should be able to plot any Function.
> This means that every Function must be defined on a Mesh.
>
> We didn't have this before which meant we needed to have things like 
> Function::attach(mesh), Function::attach(element) etc.
>
> So the need for a Mesh is to keep the code simpler, but I can see the 
> need for being able to do things like
>
>   Function f = 1.0;
>
> Would it be better to introduce a new class Constant, which does not 
> require a Mesh? (Constant would inherit from Function and replace the 
> constant Function backend.)

I don't think that it will take much to check if a mesh has been 
associated with a Function or not. This is probably simpler than adding 
a new class.

Garth

> /Anders
>
>
> Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Is there a reason why a ConstantFunction must be associated with a mesh,
> >
> >    Function(mesh, 1.0);
> >
> > It makes the initialisation of a ConstantFunction rather tedious since 
> > the mesh must be passed around. If it's not needed, I'll allow a 
> > constant function to be initialised without a mesh possible, and just 
> > return an error if a user tries to write the function to a VTK file.
> >
> > Garth
> > _______________________________________________
> > DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> > DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev