dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/06/11 22:54, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:47:10PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
>> I'm on a cell phone and can't engage in any discussions but I just
>> want to throw something in. Marie and I discussed at some point
>> another option which is to write everything as F = 0 and let UFL
>> compute J even for linear problems. J would be a optional
>> variable. Then we could have a common interface and also a common
>> solver.
> 

I think that this would be a nice option, but I don't think that it can
work without a more elaborate interface than just

  pde = VariationalProblem(F, bcs)

because UFL cannot know which coefficient in a form is unknown, and
therefore which function to compute the linearisation with respect to.
Moreover,

 - UFL cannot compute the linearisation for all forms
 - In some cases it's not desirable to let UFL do the linearisastion

> Any further thoughts on this? It's important we get this right.
> 
> I can live with
> 
>   LinearVariationalProblem
>   NonlinearVariationalProblem
> 
> if everyone else thinks that's the best option, but don't really like
> it since it's very long. Another option (if we don't go for the F = 0
> option) is
> 
>   VariationalProblem
>   NonlinearVariationalProblem
> 

I prefer to the long one. I don't see any advantage in favouring a short
name over a more explicit and readable name.

Garth

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