dolfin team mailing list archive

[Marie Rognes <meg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 21. okt. 2010 17:22, Johan Hake wrote:
>
> From a user perspective I think this is good. The user provides the 
> GoalFunctional, which is what she should care about.
>
>   1) What if a user does not provide any goal functional, will a default be
>      provided?
>
>   

No.


>   2) Will it be possible to declare several goal functionals in one form?
>
>   

Several goal functionals in one form?  I don't quite see what you mean:
one form would define one goal functional.

Do you mean several goal functionals in one form file? That could be
possible, but I'm not convinced that the added complexity would be worth
while.

First and foremost, I think the ffc interface should be

    compile_with_error_control(F, M, ...)

as in one equation (F) (or (a, L)) + one goal (M).

The simplest parser of a ufl file would then use reserved names (a, L,
M) for identification. Adding more intelligence to the parser could be
possible, as in mapping

    (a, L, M0, M1) ->

    compile_with_error_control(a, L, M0)
    compile_with_error_control(a, L, M1)

--
Marie