dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anders Logg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:26:07PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:23:58PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:21:18PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anders Logg wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:32:03PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>>>> It would be good to make a release of DOLFIN/FFL/UFL next week with the
>>>>>> new syntax for Constants and Expressions. Are there any pressing issues
>>>>>> which need to be addressed before making a new release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Garth
>>>>> I agree. Let's make a release as soon as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only things I see missing are
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. std::vector argument in eval. I see you've started on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Getting the buildbot running in on form or another.
>>>>>
>>>> If we don't get this running in time, I'm happy if we run the tests by
>>>> hand on a few OSes.
>>> Me too.
>>>
>>>>> Andre Massing has prepared a major bundle on the CGAL stuff but that
>>>>> can wait until after 0.9.5, but it would be good to do it immediately
>>>>> after so we get that done.
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps he could publish it first as a personal branch on Launchpad?
>>> Yes, it would be a good opportunity to test that feature.
>>>
>>> What do you think Andre? Could you give it a try?
>> Another thing to figure out is the logic/algorithm for selecting
>> coefficient element degrees.
>>
>> We have another thread going on this.
> 
> Another thing that we might want to fix in the new release is the
> ability to do
> 
>   return (foo, bar)
> 
> instead of
> 
>   values[0] = foo
>   values[1] = bar
> 
> in the Expression class in Python.
> 
> Johan hinted that it would be possible to implement this.
> 
> On the other hand, one can argue that the simplified Expression
> interface (using C++ string expressions) is already simple enough for
> simple cases and that one should need to assign to values when
> subclassing Expression to make it consistent with the C++ interface.
> 
> Opinions?
> 

I like to keep the consistency with C++, plus Expressions which demand a
subclass in place of JIT are usually reasonably complicated, so it may
in practice be more like

  return (............................................,
......................................)

I'm so frustrated with trying to get the SWIG director business working,
right now I would be happy so see it removed and never used by anyone,
anywhere or for anything :(.

Garth


> --
> Anders