dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 07:38:25AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >
> >
> > Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >
> > > Anders Logg wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:46:40PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >>> Anders Logg wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 09:31:34PM +0100, DOLFIN wrote:
> > >>>>> changeset:   7421:45550c2a40bc
> > >>>>> parent:      7417:be579bc40bf9
> > >>>>> user:        Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> date:        Thu Nov 05 21:29:09 2009 +0100
> > >>>>> description:
> > >>>>> Remove Mesh member from DofMap class. This will hopefully reduce some
> > >>>>> headaches related to adaptive refinement of functions and function spaces.
> > >>>>> At the least, it's a simplification.
> > >>> We need to sort out the two constructors
> > >>>
> > >>>      DofMap(boost::shared_ptr<ufc::dof_map> ufc_dofmap,
> > >>>             Mesh& dolfin_mesh);
> > >>>
> > >>>      DofMap(boost::shared_ptr<ufc::dof_map> ufc_dofmap,
> > >>>             const Mesh& dolfin_mesh);
> > >>>
> > >>> on the Python side since I recall that SWIG doesn't distinguish between
> > >>> the two. I can't remember how we did this. Did we just tell SWIG to
> > >>> ignore one of the two?
> > >> I don't see that we have made any distinction before (grepping for
> > >> DofMap in the SWIG files).
> > >>
> > >> Do you see any problems as a result of the change to the constructors?
> > >>
> > >
> > > SWIG warning messages that one hides the other.
> > >
> >
> > Has anyone tried fixing this? I had a quick go but didn't succeed.
>
> Not yet. But I will have a look.

Should be fixed now.

--
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature