ufl team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 21:24:21 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 2009/3/31 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 08:39:42PM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 31 March 2009 17:13:13 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 01:06:36PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> >> > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:48 PM,  <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >> >> I'm ok with the "forms / (a,L,M)" feature, and that pretty much
> >> > >> >> solves the interpretation problem for (u,v) in that context.
> >> > >> >> We should also have an optional list "elements" like "forms".
> >> > >> >> I like
> >> > >> >>   forms = [a, L]
> >> > >> >> better, quotes are unnecessary.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > ok!
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> In the context of PyDOLFIN, PyDOLFIN can itself check for
> >> > >> >> tuple or Form, so we don't need to check it everywhere.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I don't think DOLFIN should need to check for this. Wouldn't it
> >> > >> > be better to let the form compiler handle it?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Which interfaces does SFC have? FFC has two interfaces:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > 1. The compile() command in FFC (takes a single object or list of
> >> > >> > objects)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> compile is a builtin function in Python, so this should be renamed.
> >> > >
> >> > > Good point. I've been told this before (by Rob). Do you have a good
> >> > > suggestion for a better name?
> >> >
> >> > I have
> >> > def generate_code(input, options=None):
> >> > def jit(input, options=None):
> >>
> >> Will this be different if we let ufc take care of the jit compilation?
> >>
> >> I think,
> >>
> >>   def generate_code(input, options=None):
> >
> > I think it should be made more explicit:
> >
> >  def compile_form(form, options=None)
> >  def compile_forms(forms, options=None)
> >  def compile_element(element, options=None)
> >  def compile_elements(elements, options=None)
>
> Why? It's convenient to share code between these.

Agree. 

> >>   def signature(input, options=None):
> >>
> >> make sense then.
> >
> > This looks like a function that just computes a signature.
>
> Because that's what it is? SFC has a similar function. I suggest
> compute_signature.

Sounds good.

I am not deep into this but I suggested this function because I imagine that 
the form compilers defines their own signatures, based on for example some 
formcompiler specific options or state of some configuration file of the form 
compiler or what not.

> > To match the above functions, we could have
> >
> >  def jit_form(form, options=None)
> >  def jit_forms(forms, options=None)
> >  def jit_element(element, options=None)
> >  def jit_elements(elements, options=None)

I think a common jit function is enough. 

Johan