On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:19:10PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > 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.
ok, so let's reorganize this. See if you can find a suitable comment for those functions. -- Anders _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
