On on., 2009-08-19 at 12:03 +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > Kent Andre wrote: > >> Not sure what we have to do actually. I suppose I want get any clue from > >> the > >> > >> demo/function/restriction > >> > >> demo? > >> > >> I see that Kent has modified the dolfin.FunctionSpace to reflect the > >> present > >> (broken) implementation of restriction, anything in that line? Should such > >> an > >> implementation has been done in FunctionSpaceBase instead of > >> FunctionSpace? > >> Kent? > >> > >> Johan > >> > > > > This restriction is different in the sense that the restriction is made > > by the standard element on a sub mesh. > > > > The restriction in focus now is on the complete mesh but for only > > a part of the element. > > > > Combined, these two features will be very powerful. I guess the > > sub-mesh restriction stuff is broken due to the parallel mesh. > > > > Yes, we had to clean-up the DofMap in particular to make progress with > parallel assembly which means that sub-mesh restriction is broken at the > moment. > > Garth >
OK, I guess we should also discuss whether sub-mesh type restrictions should be done in this way (by a mesh and a mesh-function) or if a sub-mesh should be implemented. Kent _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
