dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Ola Skavhaug wrote:
> Martin Sandve Alnæs skrev den 11/04-2008 følgende:
> > 2008/4/11, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:23:15PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > Anders Logg wrote:
> > >  > > Which one do we want to use for element access in vectors and
> > >  > > matrices. It looks like operator() is now implemented for uBlasVector,
> > >  > > but isn't operator[] more natural to use?
> > >  > >
> > >  >
> > >  > Much the same to me. We've used (.,.) for matrices, so it seems natural
> > >  > to use (.) for vectors.
> > >  >
> > >  > Garth
> > >
> > >
> > > We could use [] for matrices also I guess.
> > >
> > >  Then it will look the same as numpy.
> > 
> > It's useful to index vectors with [], since the code will be similar
> > for regular arrays.
> 
> Agree. Dolfin doesn't compile with PETSc now, because of a bug in the copy
> method:
> 
> void PETScVector::copy(const uBlasVector& y, uint off1, uint off2, uint len)
> {
>   // FIXME: Verify if there's a more efficient implementation
> 
>   real* vals = array();
>   for(uint i = 0; i < len; i++)
>     vals[i + off1] = y[i + off2];
>   restore(vals);
> }
> 
> uBlasVector doesn't have operator[] implemented. Is anybody on this problem?
> 
> Ola

That was fixed ages ago:

  http://www.fenics.org/hg/dolfin?cs=fac56a64131c

-- 
Anders