dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday August 11 2010 13:34:38 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 01:13:41PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Wednesday August 11 2010 10:58:21 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > Thanks! It works now.
> > > 
> > > Yes, the copying is absolutely no problem here.
> > > 
> > > Should we differentiate between return by value (Array) and return by
> > > reference (Array&)?
> > > 
> > > In the present case, we have return by value so then it should
> > > naturally be copied, but perhaps there are other cases where we want
> > > return by reference?
> > 
> > I think we should avoid wrapping return values that are by reference. If
> > it was just the Array, it might turn out good. But the point is that we
> > wrap the Array into a NumPy array.
> > 
> > It might not be any troubles but I think we do not have it for a
> > reason...
> 
> I don't see a pressing need for it either. There are a few places
> where we do this, but those are special cases like
> mesh.coordinates(). Perhaps it's best to keep it that way.

True. If there comes a need we could probably add it.

Johan

> --
> Anders