ok, I we can change things later as far as the dofmaps are concerned. Right now, we just need an interface to get something in.
- Shawn On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Anders Logg wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 08:17:34PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 09:43:52AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> No, it doesn't exist. I imagine we could have something like either >> >> It doesn't exist! man! >> >>> <dofmap> >>> <dofs size="..."> >>> <cell index="..."> >>> <dof local="0" global="..."/> >>> <dof local="1" global="..."/> >>> ... >>> </cell> >>> ... >>> </dofs> >>> </dofmap> >>> >>> or >>> >>> <dofmap> >>> <signature="FFC dof map for ..."/> >>> </dofmap> >>> >>> depending on whether we store the entire dofmap or the signature. >> >> I just did the signature so far. > > ok, nice. > >>>> noticed that the routines that are there now for creating a Function >>>> with >>>> a given dofmap, require a Form input as well. I am a little confused on >>>> how this would be done here. We are not really defining a variational >>>> form for higher order mesh geometry. If there are any demos/files I >>>> should look at, please tell me. >>> >>> It's also possible to create a (Discrete)Function from a finite >>> element signature and dofmap signature. See lines 167-171 in >>> XMLFile.cpp. >> >> Actually, this is what I did already. I thought this would be easier. >> But you commented before about having the explicit dofmap. Do you really >> think having the explicit dofmap is necessary? We could always have a >> conversion routine later for past meshes. Or better yet, have a more >> standard format, then have a conversion script to turn it into an FFC >> compliant thing. > > I think it's necessary for two reasons: (i) DOLFIN should not depend > explicitly on FFC, one should be able to use it with other form > compilers, and (ii) the mesh numbering could change if someone decides > to add some optimization in TopologyComputation.cpp. > > We might ignore the first reason since we wouldn't really depend on > FFC, just deciding to use the same numbering as FFC uses in this > particular case. > > Anyway, we can start out with just having the dofmap signature and > then add the explicit dofs later. > >>> I hope you can find your way around the code. I'm very happy you are >>> working on this. I'll have very little time in to work on it myself >>> the coming weeks but I'll try to help out as much as I can. >> >> Yeah, I don't have much time either. The semester starts soon, so >> progress will be slow. I'm still a little paranoid about modifying the >> code, but it's seeming less bad now. > > Just go ahead an edit. It's just a C++ code and it's there to be > modified. > >> Does anyone have a suggestion for a good code editing platform? I have >> nice editor that does highlighting and stuff, but is there anything >> extraordinary out there? In other words, what do FENICS people use for >> modifying? > > I just use emacs + xterm, typically on different desktops (I usually keep > around 6x3 desktops). > > -- > Anders > > PS: Use emacs with -fn 10x20 for nicer fonts. > _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
