dolfin team mailing list archive

[Ola Skavhaug <skavhaug@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:02:57PM +0200, Ola Skavhaug wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:10:09PM +0200, 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:   6005:68b2dc927f857e686f4990c7125c212eef24c012
>> >> tag:         tip
>> >> user:        "Ola Skavhaug <skavhaug@xxxxxxxxx>"
>> >> date:        Mon Apr 20 14:11:49 2009 +0200
>> >> files:       dolfin/mesh/MeshPartitioning.cpp sandbox/passembly/Poisson.h
>> >> description:
>> >> More work on parallell numbering of mesh entities.
>> >
>> > Could we do something like this to avoid using entities[0].size():
>> >
>> > uint i = 0;
>> > while (i < values.size())
>> > {
>> >  const uint entity_index = values[i++];
>> >  const uint num_vertices = values[i++];
>> >  std::vector<uint> entity;
>> >  for (uint j = 0; j < num_vertices; ++j)
>> >    entity.push_back(values[i++])
>> >  ...
>> > }
>> >
>> > ?
>>
>> Yes, this is possible. Why do you want that? Any plans for supporting
>> more advanced heterogenous
>> meshes?
>
> Yes, at some point. But I just thought entities[0] looked ugly. :-)

I agree. Lets make the code beautiful and general.

>
> If we look at entities[0] we don't need to communicate the number of
> vertices in each entity (second value in data) but we might as well do
> it anyway.

Lets use your suggestion.

Ola

>
> --
> Anders
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAknsdMkACgkQTuwUCDsYZdFkvgCfX86ou54Oujnu+FKheL5KsgTb
> j4wAmwdsE/aSOYd3TkVnrF9eFmHYvmbY
> =PddQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>
>



-- 
Ola Skavhaug