| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On 03/12/2011 06:02 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/03/11 09:41, Marie E. Rognes wrote:On 03/12/2011 10:03 AM, Anders Logg wrote:Nice! Is it working?Yes. As in, the logic is in place. The technicalities are not. Same for facet functions. Is it ok to make MeshFunction Hierarchical, or are there some template issues that one should be aware of?Sounds a bit complicated to me - would it be better to associate relevant MeshFunctions with a Mesh, and take care of the hierarchy that way (since there is a hierarchy of meshes)?
I was aiming for consistency. The other classes that depend on a mesh and need updating after mesh refinement are dealt with using Hierarchical.
But following up on your suggestion: So, say we get a couple of forms with attached mesh functions. Instead of transferring the refined mesh functions to the refined forms, one could associate the refined mesh functions with the refined mesh, and by the "override" order specified by the Assembler, these would be applied to the refined forms. However, there can be different mesh functions (for instance different exterior_facet_domains) attached to the different forms, and so storing these with the mesh using single named mesh functions would not be sufficient. Bottomline, I don't quite see how that would work without getting "creative".
-- Marie
GarthI'll merge with main _later_ today, sort out changes wrt shared_ptrs/MeshFunctions and any other issues, and then continue. -- Marie _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
