ffc team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <g.n.wells@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anders Logg wrote:
> I think of a node as a member of the dual basis for P in the
> definition of a finite element in Brenner-Scott. A node in FFC is
> always associated with an entity, like the second node of entity 0 of
> an entity of dimension 1 (the second node on the first edge).
>
> So I would very much like to keep the name "node".

OK, but this does clash with accepted terminology. In both Brenner & 
Scott and Ciarlet, nodes are defined as points.

> See also
>
>     http://www.fenics.org/hg/ufc?f=1e97408cde10;file=src/ufc/ufc.h
>
> where we have
>
>     tabulate_nodes()
>     evaluate_node()

This is partly why I made the suggestions. I saw this terminology in 
some code from Martin. "nodes" gives the impression of points.

Garth

> But we could discuss what to call it. Other opinions?
>
> /Anders
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 05:22:22PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Could "node" be changed to to "dof" in FFC output? To me, a node 
> > represents a position on an element at which one or more dofs live.
> >
> > Garth
> > _______________________________________________
> > FFC-dev mailing list
> > FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev
> _______________________________________________
> FFC-dev mailing list
> FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev