On Friday 19 December 2008 10:08:40 Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > Quoting Johan Hake <[email protected]>: > > 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). > > That's what makes it a 'SpecialFunction' :) > > > > 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. > > Yes, I guess this will be OK, and if it turns out that one needs the > integral for accuracy reasons it is still possible to implement the > function in the main.cpp file. > We could do this for the CPP demo and use the 'new' OutflowFacet in the > Python demo.
If noone(tm) does not object to this difference in c++ vs python version of the demo, I can update the python one, and take a try on the OutflowFacet function in SpecialFunction to a not-so-special function. This will then be instantiated using a FunctionSpace and the field function. Johan _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
