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.
