yade-dev team mailing list archive

[Janek Kozicki <janek_listy@xxxxx>]

Bruno Chareyre said:     (by the date of Mon, 11 May 2015 13:56:42 +0200)

> On 09/05/15 20:59, Janek Kozicki wrote:
> > But of course I want to make sure that it works for you also. So what
> > do you think, is it better Functor1D or Functor2D?
> I can't imagine a situation where 2D is needed. It would need a body
> with two materials, which we never had before.
> Your 1D suggestion sounds right.
> 
> > BTW: Moving calculation of mass & inertia into such class would
> > remove a lot of redundant code in yade :)
> Mass and inertia need Shape, not only Material+State. How would it be
> done in this new functor?

Usually all the functors pass the most needed arguments (i.e. the one
upon which the dispatch is done plus something extra) and also the
Body* argument in case if anything else is needed. Hence StateFunctor
will have access to Shape through Body*.

I have just committed this StateFunctor, please have a look at this diff:

https://github.com/cosurgi/trunk/commit/ffbb314dfebb9d5962cacb120ee050fdfd0e4d11


On a side note: it's possible that I also will need access to Shape,
because I am somewhat unsure if the quantum wavefunction should
belong to State or to Shape :) Funny thing: it is related to
interpretations of QM, and there are ongoing debates about it, starting
somewhere around 1925, and still unsettled ;-)

best regards
-- 
Janek Kozicki                               http://janek.kozicki.pl/  |