dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:55:32PM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Saturday 18 October 2008 23:23:24 Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:16:32PM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > On Saturday 18 October 2008 21:24:53 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 03:38:01PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > > > > "in" is a reserved keyword in python. Suggestions: "f.in_space(V)" or
> > > > > "f.in_function_space(V)" or "f.member(V)"
> > > >
> > > > How about keeping u.in(V) in C++ and then map it to something suitable
> > > > in Python so that one may write
> > > >
> > > >   if u in V:
> > > >       ...
> > > >
> > > > in Python. Does anyone know how to do that?
> > >
> > > There is a problem in the logic here. In c++ you ask the function if it
> > > is in a certain FunctionSpace, but the python code "u in V" would check
> > > if u is in V by calling V.__contains__(u). To make it more consistent we
> > > could implement the 'in' function in FunctionSpace, and then just rename
> > > 'in' to __contains__.
> > >
> > > You could also keep it the way it is and then rename Function.in to let
> > > say Function._in and then extend FunctionSpace with
> > >
> > >   def __contains__(self,u).
> > >       assert(u,Function)
> > >       return u._in(self)
> > >
> > > But then we would have different logics in c++ and python.
> > >
> > > Johan
> >
> > I think that would be ok, considering it is Python that maps "in" to
> > "contains". The logic and notation from a user perspective would be
> > the same in C++ and Python:
> >
> >   if (u.in(V))
> >   {
> >
> >   }
> >
> >   if u in V:
> 
> I see your point and I agree. 
> 
> My logical error was attached to who implemented what. But to get the nice and 
> from a user perspective logical syntax you present above, we need to 
> implement it differently in c++ and python.

ok, good. Can you implement it?

> Good night! ;)

So soon?

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature