dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 06:02:48PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 2008/12/8 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 04:42:32PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> >> It doesn't feel right to place this code in either UFC or UFL, maybe
> >> we can place it in DOLFIN?
> >>
> >> It doesn't have to result in circular dependencies if we do it like this:
> >>
> >> # in ffc/sfc:
> >> from dolfin_utils import generate_wrappers
> >> ...
> >>
> >> What we need in dolfin is simply to add a module site-packages/dolfin_utils/
> >>
> >> If I get a green light, I'll go ahead and add my dolfin wrapper
> >> generation code in dolfin.
> >
> > Sounds good to place it DOLFIN.
> >
> > There are quite a few "utils" already under misc/utils:
> >
> > convert  gid     matlab  opendx  python  system  xml
> > emacs    inp2dx  octave  order   swig    vim
> >
> > Some of these are old and might not even work but some of them might
> > be useful. Would any of these be appropriate to put under
> > dolfin_utils?
> 
> I don't know all those, but providing access to e.g. dolfin-convert
> functionality from python through dolfin_utils doesn't sound like a
> bad idea.

Should dolfin_utils be limited to modules that don't depend on DOLFIN?
The conversion functionality depends on DOLFIN as far as I know.

One option could be to have both dolfin_utils (don't depend on DOLFIN)
and dolfin.utils (may depend on DOLFIN), but that might be too much of
a hassle. What do you think?

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature