2008/7/8 Garth N. Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Anders Logg wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 02:55:30PM +0200, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: >>> You probably don't need the explicit keyword for copy constructors as >>> done in Functions.h , PetscMatrix.h, uBlasMatrix.h, EpetraMatrix.h. >>> This has the added effect of not being able to pass functions as >>> arguments (perhaps that is bad but anyhow). Having just pulled this >>> seemed to make my code a bit unhappy. >> >> You should not need to have a copy constructor to pass a Function as >> argument (at least by reference or as a pointer). Or are you passing >> it by value? That's probably not a good idea since it would involve >> copying the entire mesh as well as the vector of dofs. >> > > This has become an annoyance for me because I do want to pass a Function > by value (I really do want a copy) and I can't do > > Function f(mesh); > std::vector<Function> F; > F.push_back(f); > > when explicit is used. > > Garth
Then remove the explicit keyword. I may have added it in too many places. The point is to avoid strange situations leading to memory leaks and the like. -- Martin _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
