dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday September 30 2011 14:12:37 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:25:16PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Friday September 30 2011 09:56:41 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:05:21AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > > On Friday September 30 2011 07:26:16 noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > revno: 6319
> > > > > committer: Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > branch nick: work
> > > > > timestamp: Fri 2011-09-30 16:23:08 +0200
> > > > > 
> > > > > message:
> > > > >   Add options finalize_tensor/finalize_tensors to Python assemble
> > > > > 
> > > > > functions. Note change of name of option reset_sparsity -->
> > > > > reset_sparsities for assemble_system for consistency with option
> > > > > name in
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe change back to reset_sparsity for both functions instead, as
> > > > the sparsity pattern only is built for Matrices?
> > > 
> > > I thought about it but noticed that init_global_tensor is called for
> > > both so "reset_sparsities" is consistent with "finalize_tensors".
> > 
> > Yes, but the SpartistyPatternBuilder::build just build a sparsity pattern
> > for Tensors with rank 2 or larger.
> 
> Yes, but it may potentially do so.
> 
> Anyway, perhaps it is more important to keep the arguments to the two
> assemble functions as similar as possible. So we change to
> reset_sparsity and finalize_tensor for both arguments in all assemble
> functions.

Yes I initially thought of this too, but the other arguments differ so much 
anyhow so I was not sure the point was valid, but I guess it still is.

> ok?

Yes!

Johan

> 
> --
> Anders