dolfin team mailing list archive

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

2008/12/3 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:08:51PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote:
>> On Wednesday 03 December 2008 13:01:33 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> > 2008/12/3 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:24:38PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> > >> 2008/12/3 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > >> > Another thing I've been wondering about is the renaming of
>> > >> > dolfin::Function to dolfin.cpp_Function. Is this really necessary?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > If we just removed the renaming, I guess it would still work out. So
>> > >> > we would create classes in function.py that inherit from ffc.Function
>> > >> > and dolfin.Function (instead of dolfin.cpp_Function).
>> > >>
>> > >> How?
>> > >
>> > > By just writing dolfin.Function instead of dolfin.cpp_Function in
>> > > function.py.
>> > >
>> > > In function.py, we import the SWIG-generated module "dolfin":
>> > >
>> > > import dolfin;
>> > >
>> > > This module may then contain a class named "Function" which is the
>> > > SWIG-generated wrapper for dolfin::Function (currently named
>> > > cpp_Function). We may then define a class named "Function" in the
>> > > function.py module, and this is the class that we import in the
>> > > top-level __init__.py (not the one from dolfin.dolfin).
>> > >
>> > > Does it make sense?
>> >
>> > So you mean
>> >
>> > dolfin.dolfin.Function == dolfin.cpp_Function
>> > dolfin.Function is a subclass of dolfin.dolfin.Function
>> >
>> > ?
>> >
>> > How does this make anything clearer?
>> > It only obfuscates what's being done,
>> > creates another namespace issue, and
>> > makes it even more difficult to talk about
>> > functions in dolfin.
>>
>> I have actually been thinking in the same lanes as Anders. But keeping a
>> distinction to the compiled dolfin module in the module name instead as
>> cpp_dolfin.
>>
>> from dolfin import *
>>
>> Then the compiled version of some classes would be:
>>
>> cpp_dolfin.Function aso.
>>
>> But I see that we can introduce namespace troubles if some one accidentally
>> imports from cpp_dolfin.
>>
>> Johan
>
> Yes, that's even better.
>
> SWIG generates wrappers for the classes in the C++ interface. These
> classes go into a module named "cpp_dolfin", or maybe just "cpp".
>
> Then we define the Python interface in the top-level __init__.py where
> we either import classes directly from cpp or define new classes
> (maybe based on the cpp classes).
>
> I suggest we name the module just cpp since it will be a submodule of
> DOLFIN so the "dolfin"-context is clear.
>
> This would make it possible to do things like
>
> from dolfin.cpp import Function
> from dolfin.cpp import Mesh
>
> etc.
>
> The Mesh in dolfin and dolfin.cpp happen to be the same, but not for
> Function.

cpp is good.

-- 
Martin