ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
> >>with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
> >>mixed spaces is not optimal.
> >>
> >>Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
> >>function space" as a direct sum,
> >>
> >> X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
> >>
> >>it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian product,
> >>
> >> X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
> >>
> >>It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
> >>operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
> >>
> >>That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
> >>recently been added),
> >>
> >> X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
> >>
> >>The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W scaled
> >>P3 bubbles.
> >>
> >>In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
> >>
> >> + <-->  +
> >> * <-->  \times
> >>
> >>It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
> >>
> >> + <--> \oplus
> >> ? <--> +
> >>
> >>Thoughts?
> >
> >Agree.
> >
>
> Me too.
>
> Garth

ok. Let's change then.

It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it?

--
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature