Anders Logg wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 02:44:41PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >> Anders Logg wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:04:26PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>>> DOLFIN wrote: >>>>> One or more new changesets pushed to the primary dolfin repository. >>>>> A short summary of the last three changesets is included below. >>>>> >>>>> changeset: 5080:89eb83718857c7d9dbee0003a50983e28533243e >>>>> tag: tip >>>>> parent: 5079:34987a77383c6b8a37a9c73d40ba4dc38115ca97 >>>>> parent: 5078:1182f3401713488f72e0bc52f8031530bf192bd9 >>>>> user: Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> date: Mon Nov 03 13:57:42 2008 +0100 >>>>> files: dolfin/fem/DirichletBC.cpp >>>>> description: >>>>> merge >>>>> >>>> Beat me to it. >>>> >>>> I'm running into an issue with DirichletBC and mixed elements because >>>> BoundaryCondition, from which DirichletBC inherits, creates a new >>>> FunctionSpace which messes up tests for equivalence and breaks the >>>> sharing of function spaces paradigm. >>>> >>>> Is there a problem if we remove SubDomain from the argument list for >>>> DirichletBC and just pass the corerct FunctionSpace? One can easily >>>> extract the necessary sub element FunctionSpace and send it to >>>> DirihcletBC. To me this is more intuitive. >>>> >>>> Garth >>> We then need to find a nice way for users to extract the "sub space". >>> Calling extract_sub_space, getting a pointer and then handling the >>> deletion of that pointer won't look very nice. >>> >> Agree. So we remove the SubSystem argument to DirichletBC? > > Yes. >
Done. Nice to delete almost half the constructors from three classes. Now I actually understand how DirichletBC works. The new design has made what happens in a number of areas much clearer to me. Garth >>> How about replacing the SubSystem class with a new class SubSpace >>> which works just like SubSystem but it also inherits from >>> FunctionSpace: >>> >>> SubSpace Vu(V, 0); >>> SubSpace Vp(V, 1); >>> >> Looks ok. I'm inclined to keep the name SubSystem because what we're >> extracting are not really subspaces. >> >> Garth > > I also thought about that, but came to the conclusion that in some > sense it is in fact a subspace. For example, for 2D Stokes Vu above > will be the subspace of all function which have a zero third component > (although the third component is not written out). > > We could possibly name it SubSystemSpace. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > DOLFIN-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
