dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:57:26AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Monday August 16 2010 05:51:24 noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > revno: 4986
> > committer: Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > branch nick: dolfin-dev
> > timestamp: Mon 2010-08-16 14:48:44 +0200
> > message:
> >   Implement named MeshFunctions in Python. Might be a better way (using
> > SWIG magic).
>
> I think it is fine. The only reason we would like to wrap it using SWIG would
> be to preserve the types. So one could check if a passed MeshFunction is for
> example a VertexFunction. But I think we should not encourage that and instead
> use dim.

ok.

> When I looked at the Python implementation I wonder if we should harmonize the
> data type setting with NumPy. Instead of 'int' pass either int or 'i', and so
> on.
>
> If you agree, do you know of any other place where we could do such a
> harmonizing?

Isn't the problem that with "uint" we get the expected type (that
matches dolfin::uint in C++). Last time I checked, the NumPy list of
int types is a jungle of different options.

> I also think it is better to implement the named MeshFunctions as inheriting
> from MeshFunction, instead of just beeing functions that returns. I can fix
> this.

I tried but it didn't work (the constructors were not called) but I'm
sure you know how to fix it. :-)

--
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature