Anders Logg wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:30:46AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >> Anders Logg wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:52:54AM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: >>>> On Monday 16 February 2009 11:31:36 Anders Logg wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:12:21AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>>>>> Anders Logg wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:36:52AM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday 15 February 2009 21:23:44 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: 5701:d3661203791d9c7707695c59adbbd3a2e20a220c >>>>>>>>> tag: tip >>>>>>>>> user: Anders Logg <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> date: Sun Feb 15 21:23:36 2009 +0100 >>>>>>>>> files: dolfin/function/Function.cpp >>>>>>>>> description: >>>>>>>>> Move code from Function copy constructor to assignment operator and >>>>>>>>> call assignment operator from copy constructor >>>>>>>> I liked Garth solution better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) A copy constructor that, just copies the Function if it has >>>>>>>> a FunctionSpace. >>>>>>>> 2) The assignment operator works only for discrete Functions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We could add an interpolate() (or something) function that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> v.interpolate(*_vector, *_function_space); >>>>>>> We already have exactly such a function. >>>> Do we? >>> Yes: >>> >>> /// Interpolate function to given function space >>> void interpolate(GenericVector& coefficients, const FunctionSpace& V) >>> const; >>> >>>>>>>> Then the user can explicitly create a discrete function of its >>>>>>>> user-defined Function. Now the user gets this as an implicitly result >>>>>>>> of a function copy, which make litle sense to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that's just me :) >>>>>>> I like it. Other opinions? >>>>>> It is neat, but I would prefer any interpolation to be more explicit so >>>>>> that it's clear what's going on. A copy should be a straight copy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Garth >>>>> ok. I've changed it back. See if it looks ok. >>>> Now a user cannot copy a Function that is not a discrete function, which >>>> was >>>> the case before we started all this. >>> Wasn't that the point? It's not possible to copy the eval() operator. >>> >> It is if a MyFunction object is copied to a MyFunction object, which we >> couldn't do before. My change made this possible. >> >> Garth > > What's the point of that? It's like copying half a Function. >
No, it's a copy. > If I do > > v = w; > > I expect v to be in everything essential the same as w. > If you do MyFuncion f0; MyFunction f1 = f0; f0 and and f1 will be the same. The assignment operator is a separate story. Garth > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
