ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think there should be only one.

I also like .dx() (obviously since I chose it), but maybe it's just
because I'm used to it.

Maybe

    a = u.Dx(i)*v.Dx(i)*dx

looks pretty nice?

/Anders

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:05:24AM +0200, jhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 1. Sounds very good!
> 2. I don't have such a strong opinion about this. I like the .dx operator,
> but Ridg may have a point that it may be more readable using .Dx. Maybe we
> could allow for both?
> 
> /Johan
> 
> 
> > Commit from logg (2005-05-23 18:23 CEST)
> > ----------------
> >
> > Suggestions for changes
> >
> > I updated the TODO list with two suggested changes for FFC.
> > Tell me what you think.
> >
> > 1. Projections
> > --------------
> >
> > I'm thinking of adding projections to the language. A simple example:
> >
> >     P0 = FiniteElement("Discontinuous vector Lagrange", "tetrahedron", 0)
> >     pi = Projection(P0)
> >
> > pi would then be a projection onto piecewise constants.
> >
> > This could be used to reduce the complexity of evaluating certain forms.
> > If w is a Function, one can replace w with its projection in a form:
> >
> >     a = pi(w)*u.dx(i)*v.dx(i)*dx
> >
> > 2. Change .dx() --> .Dx()
> > -------------------------
> >
> > Ridg suggested changing the notation for derivatives from .dx() to .Dx()
> > to avoid confusion with the integration operator *dx. What do you think?
> > Poisson would then change from
> >
> >     a = u.dx(i)*v.dx(i)*dx
> >
> > to
> >
> >     a = u.Dx(i)*v.Dx(i)*dx
> >
> >   ffc  TODO  1.34
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FFC-dev mailing list
> > FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.fenics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Anders Logg
Research Assistant Professor
Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago
http://www.tti-c.org/logg/