On Wednesday 03 December 2008 13:01:33 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > 2008/12/3 Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:24:38PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >> 2008/12/3 Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > Another thing I've been wondering about is the renaming of > >> > dolfin::Function to dolfin.cpp_Function. Is this really necessary? > >> > > >> > If we just removed the renaming, I guess it would still work out. So > >> > we would create classes in function.py that inherit from ffc.Function > >> > and dolfin.Function (instead of dolfin.cpp_Function). > >> > >> How? > > > > By just writing dolfin.Function instead of dolfin.cpp_Function in > > function.py. > > > > In function.py, we import the SWIG-generated module "dolfin": > > > > import dolfin; > > > > This module may then contain a class named "Function" which is the > > SWIG-generated wrapper for dolfin::Function (currently named > > cpp_Function). We may then define a class named "Function" in the > > function.py module, and this is the class that we import in the > > top-level __init__.py (not the one from dolfin.dolfin). > > > > Does it make sense? > > So you mean > > dolfin.dolfin.Function == dolfin.cpp_Function > dolfin.Function is a subclass of dolfin.dolfin.Function > > ? > > How does this make anything clearer? > It only obfuscates what's being done, > creates another namespace issue, and > makes it even more difficult to talk about > functions in dolfin.
I have actually been thinking in the same lanes as Anders. But keeping a distinction to the compiled dolfin module in the module name instead as cpp_dolfin. from dolfin import * Then the compiled version of some classes would be: cpp_dolfin.Function aso. But I see that we can introduce namespace troubles if some one accidentally imports from cpp_dolfin. Johan _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
