On Thursday 18 December 2008 22:34:14 Anders Logg wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:42:47PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: > > On Wednesday 17 December 2008 22:57:48 Anders Logg wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:53:32PM +0100, 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: 5406:bc43cc830c11058dcabf239a5a7f878bb860fabb > > > > tag: tip > > > > user: Anders Logg <[email protected]> > > > > date: Wed Dec 17 22:53:27 2008 +0100 > > > > files: TODO demo/la/eigensolver/python/demo.py > > > > demo/pde/optimization/python/demo.py description: > > > > Fix remaining unchecked demos. Some demos still broken: > > > > > > > > EE demo/pde/nonlinear-poisson/python/demo.py > > > > EE demo/pde/poisson1D/python/demo.py viper > > > > problem with 1D EE demo/pde/waveguide/python/demo.py > > > > results in C++ and Python differ EE > > > > demo/pde/dg/advection_diffusion/python/demo.py > > > > EE demo/nls/nonlinearpoisson/python/demo.py > > > > EE demo/mesh/partitioning/python/demo.py > > > > EE demo/mesh/intersection/python/demo.py strange > > > > transformation EE demo/ode/aliev-panfilov/python/demo.py > > > > EE demo/ode/lorenz/python/demo.py > > > > > > We may ignore the ODE demos here. Some work is needed to get the ODE > > > solvers to function from Python but they have only worked in part > > > before so it's not very important now. > > > > > > The following demos remain: > > > > > > demo/pde/nonlinear-poisson/python/demo.py ? > > > demo/pde/poisson1D/python/demo.py viper problem > > > with 1D demo/pde/waveguide/python/demo.py results in > > > C++ and Python differ > > > demo/pde/dg/advection_diffusion/python/demo.py ? > > > > This demo is somewhat depricated as it stands now. I added it based on > > the previous c++ demo. Since then has the c++ demo changed, to be more > > simple, but including the builtin OutflowFacet special function. This is > > not included in the python interface. > > > > To get it up and running in python we need to add OutflowFacet to the > > python interface. This should be doable, and quite straightforward with > > the new function interface. Please correct me: > > > > class OutflowFacet(ffc.Function,cpp.OutflowFacet): > > def __init__(self, vec_field): > > appropriate check on vec_field > > mesh = vec_field.function_space().mesh() > > > > # Define the OutflowFacet form > > n = FacetNormal(mesh) > > a = ffc.dot(vec_field,n)*ffc.ds > > self._dolfin_form = Form(a) > > > > domain = dim2domain[mesh.topology().dim()] > > self._element = ffc.FiniteElement("Discontinuous Lagrange", > > domain, 0) > > > > ffc.Function.__init__(self, self._element) > > cpp.OutflowFacet(self, self._dolfin_form) > > > > It is a bastard wrt being a full fledged dolfin.Function, it does not > > define its own function space. I do not know if this would be a problem > > as the c++ counterpart neither initiate its base class with a > > functionspace. > > > > Once this function is in place the rest should be quite straight forward. > > > > Johan > > It looks strange to me, and so does the C++ version (that a Function > needs to be initialized with a form). > > How about just evaluating the function at the midpoint of the facet > and computing the inner product with the facet normal?
Sounds resonable enough to me. I suppose an integral over the facet is potentially more aqurate than just the midpoint evaluation. Johan _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
