← Back to team overview

fenics team mailing list archive

Re: FEniCS documentation

 



On 29/04/10 14:43, Anders Logg wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 02:21:49PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:


On 28/04/10 17:46, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:


On 28 April 2010 18:41, Anders Logg<logg@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 06:33:36PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:


On 28 April 2010 18:13, Anders Logg<logg@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
Sounds good, I hope Kristian can give you some instructions on what
you can help out with.

Sure, we're still in the process of figuring out exactly how the
format should be, but I think the demos might be the easiest place
to start. Do we want to recategorize the demos as suggested in the
blueprint, or should we just start adding all the demos that we have
in DOLFIN and keep the directory structure?

I think some recategorization is necessary, but I don't know which is
best: to first add them and then move them around of first decide on
the categories and then add the demos.

Maybe we don't need to add all of them before we have a better idea
about the categories.
I don't think we'll get it right the first time anyway though.

Have you planned which categories should go into the programmer's
reference? We should probably try to match those categories with the
demos and link to them.

No, not yet, but I think the structure in the DOLFIN source tree is
pretty logical.
The question is if we can match everything up with a demo, although it
would be nice if we could.


I'm not so sure that this is possible/sensible. The demos
'demonstrate' how to solve various problems and how to use various
features. Shouldn't the programmers reference document the
interface?

I think there's also room for simple demos that illustrate the use
of basic classes like Mesh, MeshFunction, input/output, linear
algebra, parameters etc like we have now, without necessarily solving
a PDE.


Yes, these demonstrate various 'features'.

Garth

--
Anders




Follow ups

References