mpic++ -o dolfin/la/PETScVector.os -c -Wall -pipe -ansi -DDEBUG -g -Werror -DNDEBUG -O2 -DHAS_MPI=1 -DMPICH_IGNORE_CXX_SEEK -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"0.7.2\" -DHAS_PETSC=1 -DHAS_SCOTCH=1 -DHAS_UMFPACK=1 -DHAS_GTS=1 -fPIC -I. -I/scratch/buildbot/local/include -I/usr/include/libxml2 -I/scratch/buildbot/local/petsc-2.3.3-p11/bmake/linux-gnu-c-debug -I/scratch/buildbot/local/petsc-2.3.3-p11/include -I/scratch/buildbot/local/include -I/scratch/buildbot/local/scotch_5.0/bin -I/usr/include/suitesparse -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include dolfin/la/PETScVector.cpp dolfin/la/PETScVector.cpp: In member function ‘void dolfin::PETScVector::copy(const dolfin::uBlasVector&, dolfin::uint, dolfin::uint, dolfin::uint)’: dolfin/la/PETScVector.cpp:402: error: no match for ‘operator[]’ in ‘y[(i + off2)]’
ilmar Anders Logg wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 01:34:24PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >> 2008/4/11, Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:23:15PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Anders Logg wrote: >>> > > Which one do we want to use for element access in vectors and >>> > > matrices. It looks like operator() is now implemented for uBlasVector, >>> > > but isn't operator[] more natural to use? >>> > > >>> > >>> > Much the same to me. We've used (.,.) for matrices, so it seems natural >>> > to use (.) for vectors. >>> > >>> > Garth >>> >>> >>> We could use [] for matrices also I guess. >>> >>> Then it will look the same as numpy. >>> >> It's useful to index vectors with [], since the code will be similar >> for regular arrays. >> > > I forgot something important, namely that operator[] expects exactly > one argument, so we can't do A[i, j] for matrices. > > Maybe then it's better to have () both for vectors and matrices? > > _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
