On Tuesday 26 May 2009 11:36:52 Anders Logg wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 07:52:09PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 07:31:55PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Johan Hake wrote:
On Sunday 10 May 2009 12:20:24 Garth N. Wells wrote:
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: 6112:1b2b19ddacfa92c80d36dc78a5bb4829605a10c0
tag: tip
user: Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>
date: Sun May 10 00:33:56 2009 +0200
files: dolfin/common/Variable.cpp dolfin/common/Variable.h
dolfin/log/Logger.cpp dolfin/log/Table.cpp dolfin/log/Table.h
dolfin/log/log.cpp dolfin/log/log.h
dolfin/parameter/NewParameters.cpp dolfin/parameter/NewParameters.h
sandbox/misc/cpp/main.cpp description: Add str() to Variable
interface (in C++) and overload info() to accept a Variable,
printing the output of str().
The function
void info(const Variable& variable);
has caused a problem when compiling the Python wrappers,
dolfin/swig/cpp_wrap.cc: In function ‘PyObject*
_wrap_info(PyObject*, PyObject*)’:
dolfin/swig/cpp_wrap.cc:27939: error: invalid conversion from ‘int’
to ‘PyObject*’
dolfin/swig/cpp_wrap.cc:27791: error: too many arguments to function
‘PyObject* _wrap_info__SWIG_0(PyObject*, PyObject*)’
dolfin/swig/cpp_wrap.cc:27939: error: at this point in file
dolfin/swig/cpp_wrap.cc:27942: error: invalid conversion from ‘int’
to ‘PyObject*’
dolfin/swig/cpp_wrap.cc:27861: error: too many arguments to function
‘PyObject* _wrap_info__SWIG_1(PyObject*, PyObject*)’
dolfin/swig/cpp_wrap.cc:27942: error: at this point in file
scons: *** [dolfin/swig/cpp_wrap.os] Error 1
From a quick inspection, I don't see what the problem is.
I think swig has some problems with overloading functions with
variable number of parameters.
I don't particularly like the functions with a variable number of
parameters (those using the ellipses (...)). Can we avoid using them?
Can we make use of ostringstream instead?
We could do that to some extent, but the current implementation has
some uses:
It looks like
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_39_0/libs/format/doc/format.html
might preserve the syntax but avoid using the ellipses (...).
Garth
Yes, but it does not address any of the issues (1-3) below as far as I
can see.
I cannot see what using boost::format for the input to the logging functions
has anything to do with the issues listed under 1-3.
We could change the signatures of the logging functions to take a
boost::format instance instead of the (std::string msg, ...) that is now.
Then we would have:
debug(format("Jada %1, %2")%"bada"%100);
instead of:
debug("jada %s, %d","bada",100);
