dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:13:43AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 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

How do you mean?

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

ok.

--
Anders