On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > 2008/6/30 Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:47:31PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >> The best way to achieve good UFC compatibility is to limit > >> assumptions about the form compilers to a minimum, and > >> (a) ufl form > >> (b) which compiler? > >> (c) a generic set of compiler options (any kind of object) > >> sounds to me like a good generalization. > > > > Sounds good. We can just have a parameter > > > > form_compiler_options > > > > which is passed on to the form compiler in assemble(). > > > > Should the choice of form compiler be an argument to assemble() or > > should it be a global option set by dolfin_set()? > > I think that can safely stay a global option, at least for now. > > In particular, mixing form compilers in one application will > be messy because of dofmaps, and I don't think fixing that > is where we want to spend our time.
ok. Hake, do you want to supply a patch for this (a slight modification of your previous patch). I'm on vacation. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
