dolfin team mailing list archive

[Martin Sandve Alnæs <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7 July 2011 23:44, Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday July 7 2011 12:21:26 Anders Logg wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 02:20:44PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
>> > Is the plan for 1.0-beta to fix
>> >
>> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ffc/+bug/787010
>> >
>> > and then release?
>>
>> Yes + decide on the interface for NonlinearVariationalProblem.
>>
>> I think that should be all.
>>
>> It would be good to hear more comments on the two suggestions:
>>
>> 1. (current)
>>
>>   NonlinearVariationalProblen(lhs, rhs, u, bcs, [J])
>>
>>   This is consistent with LinearVariationalProblem and the solve()
>>   functions; same order of arguments.
>>
>> 2. (Garth)
>>
>>   NonlinearVariationalProblen(lhs, u, bcs, [J])
>>
>>   This removes the unnecessary rhs argument which always has to be
>>   zero.
>>
>> I think there are good arguments for both but not very strong so it's
>> a matter of taste.
>
> If:
>
>  The point is that it makes the interface for all variational problems
>  (linear or nonlinear) the same:
>
> is the only reason, I go with Garth.
>
> Johan

If it made the signatures interchangeable, a dummy argument
could be worth it, but as it doesn't, +1 to the Garth version.

Martin