2008/4/22, Martin Sandve Alnæs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/4/22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I've made an attempt to cleanup the GenericFoo interfaces and make > > > them consistent. (I also added a few functions, for example A *= a, > > > x += y etc.) > > > > > > Can everyone interested please take a look and see that things look good > > > for GenericTensor, GenericMatrix and GenericVector, even including the > > > order of definition of functions, punctuation in comments etc. > > > > > > The copy function is removed from GenericVector but is in the subclasses. > > I'd like GenericVector to have the copy function. Any reason to not have > it ? > > > > Kent > > > > I also thought we were keeping that one. There's absolutely no point > in keeping it in the subclasses if it's removed from the interfaces, > since copy constructors should do the same thing. > > > Another thing, about this comment: > > ///--- Special functions, intended for library use only --- > > I wrote something similar earlier for "instance()", but I'm not so sure > this should apply to "down_cast" and "has_type". User code that > is handling a specific backend in certain places should definitely > use these functions, and claiming they're library use only will > probably lead users who read these comments to use > dynamic_cast instead which they shouldn't. > > -- > > Martin
Also, I don't see why instance() should be implemented in GenericMatrix and GenericVector, I think the default GenericTensor implementation should be enough for everyone except Vector/Matrix. If anyone disagrees, please provide an example. -- Martin _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
