On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:35:30PM +0200, Dag Lindbo wrote:
Why do I care? I'm looking at the current state of the LinearPDE class.
Here, the solution vector is a member function, and the solution
Function is initialized with a reference to this vector. I.e. the
LinearPDE (not the DiscreteFunction) owns the solution vector. This is
of course a problem if the LinearPDE goes out of scope before the
solution function (bug 24). It is also a bit counter-intuitive.
If it was possible to do an initialization like above, then the solve()
method would simply do
u.init(mesh, form, 1);
GenericVector& x = u.vector();
<solve>
There is a member local_vector in DiscreteFunction that could be used
for this. If this is nonzero, then the DiscreteFunction owns its data.
See if you can figure out a good way for the DiscreteFunction to know
that it should take responsibility for the vector here.
Right... I don't see how to do this without breaking the encapsulation of
both Function and DiscreteFunction (making LinearPDE friend in both).
Bundle attached.
Garth, does this look OK?
In essence, the member x is removed from the LinearPDE class. in
LinearPDE::solve I do
(...)
Vector b;
Vector* x = new Vector();
(... call solver etc)
u.init(mesh, *x, a, 1);
DiscreteFunction& uu = dynamic_cast<DiscreteFunction&>(*u.f);
uu.local_vector = x;
/Dag
Looks like a good temporary solution to me.
I expect when we're done and happy with the linear algebra classes
(which should be soon), we will have a similar party with the function
classes... :-)
