On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:10:32PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > 2008/6/16 Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:46:23PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >> 2008/6/16 Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 07:06:20PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >> >> I think DofMapSet should be independent of the form it was initialized > >> >> with. > >> >> I believe the sharing of a single set of dofmaps among different forms > >> >> is one > >> >> of the key tasks of this class, and that the vector with form argument > >> >> dofmaps > >> >> should rather be obtained on demand: > >> > > >> > Agree. > >> > > >> >> // Get vector of dofmaps (possibly not unique) for each argument of > >> >> form > >> >> dofmapvector = dofmapset.getDofMaps(form); > >> > > >> > What does this function do? > >> > >> Gets a vector<DofMap*> with length equal to form.rank() + > >> form.num_coefficients(), > >> where each DofMap* is the same if the signature is the same. > >> In other words, constructs and returns what is currently a member: > >> > >> // Array of dof maps for current form > >> std::vector<DofMap*> dof_map_set; > >> > >> but on the fly for a given form such that DofMapSet isn't > >> associated with any particular form. > > > > ok, now I understand what you mean. But I would suggest > > > > DofMap& dof_map = dofmapset.extractDofMap(form, i); > > Agree, that was the second function I suggested.
ok. > > Or are we going to pass around Arrays of DofMaps? > > It was just a convenience function to replace the existing > functionality, but this functionality should probably rather > be in UFC or something. DofMapSet? Perhaps, but that would mean putting *functionality* into UFC which we haven't done so far (except the Python boilerplate). -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
