dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:48:42AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote:

> > Would it help if we do this:
> >
> > 1. Make GenericFunction::evaluate an inline function that just calls
> >   a new version of GenericFunction::eval.
> >
> > 2. The new version of GenericFunction::eval has the same
> >   implementation as the current evaluate() function.
> >
> > The result would be that we get two eval() functions, one with plain
> > pointers and one with Array(). A C++ user (and the JIT-compiled
> > expressions) would use the plain pointer version, while the Array
> > version gets wrapped for Python subclassing (where I assume the extra
> > cost will not make a difference).

> I would discourage this solution as it diverge the interfaces
> between C++ and Python

I don't see that. In both cases, it would still be

  eval(values, x, [cell])

in both C++ and Python.

> introduce an interface change which cannot
> be backported

I don't see that it needs to be backported. The new interface is
compatible with the old (same order of the arguments) and old demos
would still run (since the Array interface would still be there).

> and it circumvents the original problem of Array<>
> being costly to instantiate.  Johan

Exactly. :-)

--
Anders


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