dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 08:46:13PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> On 21 November 2011 13:07, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:55:43PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:49:42PM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 20. nov. 2011, at 23:31, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Is anyone using the Function constructor that takes a vector as input
> >> > > argument?
> >> > >
> >> > >  Function u(V, x);
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >>
> >> Does it work? In parallel?
> >>
> >> Does it not work to instead use
> >>
> >>   x = u.vector()
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> If you need it, we should keep it but add an error message that it
> >> doesn't work in parallel, unless it does...
> >
> > Any more input on this? There are several options:
> >
> > 1. Remove this constructor
> >
> > 2. Throw an error when running in parallel
> >
> > 3. Check that the input vector makes sense
> >
> > The last one is problematic since I don't see an easy way to perform
> > the check, other than calling get_local and having it fail.
> >
>
> I haven't heard any reason why it can't be removed. We may need to fix
> assignment (re earlier discussion on assign) to just copy values and
> not the whole object so that a user can get the vector and then assign
> values to it without messing up the ghosting.

Sounds good, but I want to wait for Marie to comment before I remove
it. She is using it.

Marie? Does it work for you to use x = u.vector()?

--
Anders