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.
