dolfin team mailing list archive

["Martin Sandve Alnæs" <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/4/22, kent-and@xxxxxxxxx <kent-and@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > I've made an attempt to cleanup the GenericFoo interfaces and make
>  > them consistent. (I also added a few functions, for example A *= a,
>  > x += y etc.)
>  >
>  > Can everyone interested please take a look and see that things look good
>  > for GenericTensor, GenericMatrix and GenericVector, even including the
>  > order of definition of functions, punctuation in comments etc.
>
>
> The copy function is removed from GenericVector but is in the subclasses.
>  I'd like GenericVector to have the copy function. Any reason to not have it ?
>
>  Kent


I also thought we were keeping that one. There's absolutely no point
in keeping it in the subclasses if it's removed from the interfaces,
since copy constructors should do the same thing.


Another thing, about this comment:

    ///--- Special functions, intended for library use only ---

I wrote something similar earlier for "instance()", but I'm not so sure
this should apply to "down_cast" and "has_type". User code that
is handling a specific backend in certain places should definitely
use these functions, and claiming they're library use only will
probably lead users who read these comments to use
dynamic_cast instead which they shouldn't.

--
Martin