dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:19:10PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 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.

ok, so let's reorganize this. See if you can find a suitable comment
for those functions.

-- 
Anders