dolfin team mailing list archive

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

2008/12/3 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:48:49PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Good, anyone knows how to implement it?
>
> --
> Anders

Simply replace "import dolfin" with "import dolfin as cpp" and replace
"dolfin" with "cpp" in all pydolfin code.

--
Martin