dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 13:51:25 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> 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 :(.

:)

I can feel the pain!! 

I will see if I can release you from some of it. 

Johan

> Garth
> 
> > --
> > Anders
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>