On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:52:54AM +0100, Johan Hake wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2009 11:31:36 Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:12:21AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:36:52AM +0100, Johan Hake wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 21:23:44 DOLFIN wrote:
One or more new changesets pushed to the primary dolfin repository.
A short summary of the last three changesets is included below.
changeset: 5701:d3661203791d9c7707695c59adbbd3a2e20a220c
tag: tip
user: Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>
date: Sun Feb 15 21:23:36 2009 +0100
files: dolfin/function/Function.cpp
description:
Move code from Function copy constructor to assignment operator and
call assignment operator from copy constructor
I liked Garth solution better.
1) A copy constructor that, just copies the Function if it has
a FunctionSpace.
2) The assignment operator works only for discrete Functions.
We could add an interpolate() (or something) function that
v.interpolate(*_vector, *_function_space);
We already have exactly such a function.
Do we?
Yes:
/// Interpolate function to given function space
void interpolate(GenericVector& coefficients, const FunctionSpace& V) const;
Then the user can explicitly create a discrete function of its
user-defined Function. Now the user gets this as an implicitly result
of a function copy, which make litle sense to me.
But that's just me :)
I like it. Other opinions?
It is neat, but I would prefer any interpolation to be more explicit so
that it's clear what's going on. A copy should be a straight copy.
Garth
ok. I've changed it back. See if it looks ok.
Now a user cannot copy a Function that is not a discrete function, which was
the case before we started all this.
Wasn't that the point? It's not possible to copy the eval() operator.
Well it is but then it would be necessary to keep a pointer to the
given Function and propagate the eval call to that Function's eval.
That seems a bit overkill.
Also sometimes a copy is something different than an assignment, so it is not
always meaningfull to use *this = other; in the copy constructor.
I've found it's almost always the case that one can implement the
copy constructor by
*this = other;
We use this in a bunch of other places, including the Mesh class.
In which cases will it break?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
DOLFIN-dev mailing list
DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
