ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:00:38PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> On 08/07/10 11:49, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >On 8 July 2010 08:22, Garth N. Wells<gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >>On Jul 8 2010, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:34:39PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>On 7 July 2010 20:22, Garth N. Wells<gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 07/07/10 20:14, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:26:20PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Supporting CellVolume makes it possible to do:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>CG = FiniteElement("Lagrange", triangle, 2)
> >>>>>>>DG = FiniteElement("DG", triangle, 0)
> >>>>>>>v = TestFunction(DG)
> >>>>>>>f = Coefficient(CG)
> >>>>>>>vol = triangle.v
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Would it be better to call it vol or volume instead of v? Or does it
> >>>>>>have to be a one-letter word?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>. . . or call it 'volume'.
> >>>>
> >>>>It can be whatever we want, I just followed what was already there.
> >>>>Should we then rename 'd', 'n' and 'x' to 'geometric_dimension',
> >>>>'facet_normal', and 'spatial_coordinate' while we're at it?
> >>>
> >>>I think d, n, x are fine, but v does not necessarily look like a
> >>>volume to me (it looks like a test function).
> >>>
> >>
> >>I agree - d, n and x are all commonly used, but v for volume isn't.
> >
> >I changed 'v' to 'volume' and fixed a few bugs along the way.
> >
> >On a related note, should we implement CellDiagonal too?
> >We use cell.diagonal() for MeshSize in SpecialFunctions.h of DOLFIN
> >and since we often use MeshSize for the 'h' coefficient in DG forms
> >e.g., PoissonDG we could remove the need for this function evaluation.
> >The code to compute the CellDiagonal could just be copied from
> >IntervalCell, TriangleCell and TetrahedronCell of DOLFIN and dumped in
> >codesnippets.py.
> >
>
> What if we call it 'Circumradius'?
>
> I recall that the agreed not have have CellSize because of the
> ambiguity in its definition, but circumradius is unambiguous, so I
> vote to add it.

Isn't 'diameter' better? It is shorter and well-defined
(2*circumradius).

--
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature