dolfin team mailing list archive

["Marie E. Rognes" <meg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/25/2011 05:01 PM, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> There has been a regression in the feature set of dolfin_utils, and I
> cannot see in the bzr log any sign of this being intentional.


If you are referring to the wrapper code generation (which I assume you 
are), yes, it was heavily refactored in the spring. No features were 
intentionally removed; however, I did not emphasize keeping features 
that didn't seem used.

> Form names are ignored, numbers being used instead to name classes
> "Form_0" instead of "Form_a" etc.
>
> I find the Form_name naming much more useful than Form_0, and that's
> why there is form name input in the first place.

This might very well be a bug rather than an intentional removal.


> But the names are still used in the typedef generation, so I'm
> guessing ffc doesn't use the form name feature at all?


Probably not. All the generated demo form files for DOLFIN were 
identical before and after the rewrite.

Could you add a test for the case(s) you are interested in?

--
Marie


> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp