On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 02:24:13PM +0200, Dag Lindbo wrote: > 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? > > > > Whatever you do with matrices, I don't have an opinion. > > However, I think operator[] should be present for vectors. One can argue > that it does not _need_ to be there, but the fact is that it _is_ in the > 0.7.2 interface (it worked until yesterday for uBlasVector, but it was > maybe handled by uBlas itself?). > > /Dag
Other opinions? Should we have both? Since we have A(i, j), it will be expected that x(i) works. But it will also be expected that x[i] works (since it works in numpy and it has worked before for uBlasVector). -- Anders _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
