dolfin team mailing list archive

[Kristian Ølgaard <k.b.oelgaard@xxxxxxxxx>]

2010/10/19 Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tuesday October 19 2010 09:44:57 Anders Logg wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 06:19:52PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
>> > On 19 October 2010 16:52, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > Kristian, is it time to move things over from newdoc to doc (and remove
>> > > newdoc)?
>> >
>> > Yes, I think we can do that. I was just looking at one of the last
>> > issues which is translating type info from C++ syntax to Python.
>>
>> ok! Johannes, could you update the link/cronjob?
>>
>> > I think we handle all the DOLFIN classes in a nice way using e.g.,
>> > _Mesh_ to create links, but for the built-in types, I think that we
>> > should perhaps do the following:
>> >
>> > For the *Returns* section, the first line should only contain the type
>> >
>> > such that for the Mesh::coordinates() function we will have:
>> >     /// *Returns*
>> >     ///     double*
>> >     ///         Coordinates of all vertices.
>> >
>> > instead of what we have now:
>> >     /// *Returns*
>> >     ///     An array of doubles
>> >     ///         Coordinates of all vertices.
>> >
>> > Then the 'double*' will be mapped to 'numpy.array(float)' (or similar)
>> > for the Python programmer's reference, 'int* --> 'numpy.array(int)'
>> > and 'std::vec<double>' --> 'list of floats' etc.
>> >
>> > For the *Arguments* section we can include the argument type
>> > information in parenthesis just after the argument name such that for
>> >
>> > the Mesh::num_entities(uint d) function we will have:
>> >     /// *Arguments*
>> >     ///     d (integer)
>> >     ///         Topological dimension.
>> >
>> > instead of what we have now:
>> >     /// *Arguments*
>> >     ///     d
>> >     ///         An integer, topological dimension.
>> >
>> > For the former it will be easy to do search and replace to handle the
>> > mapping. What do you think?
>>
>> Sounds like a good solution!
>
> +
>
> What with more essoteric arguments and return values such as:
>
>   std::vector<Foo>, Array<Foo>, std::pair<Foo, Bar>

I was planning to handle containers like the 'std::vector<uint>' as
'std::vec<> --> 'list of ' + 'uint' --> 'int'. In your example 'Foo'
should really be '_Foo_' because we will insert a link to the DOLFIN
class 'Foo'.

So Array<Foo> should be _Array_<_Foo_> and this case is already
handled in the current setup.

What does std::pair map to in Python anyway? I get

>>> mesh = dolfin.UnitSquare(1,1)
>>> point = dolfin.Point(0.0, 2.0)
>>> mesh.closest_point_and_cell(point)
<Swig Object of type 'std::pair< dolfin::Point,dolfin::uint > *' at 0x94820b0>

I expect to treat it similarly to std::vec and with <Foo, Bar> = <_Foo_, _Bar_>.

Kristian

> Johan
>
>> --
>> Anders
>>
>> > Kristian
>> >
>> > > I see there have been a couple of important bug fixes, including the
>> > > template parse error.
>> > >
>> > > If so, could Johannes update the cronjob to fix this?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
>> > > Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
>> > > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>> --
>> Anders
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
>> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>