On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:09:07AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > Anders Logg wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 12:48:00AM +0200, Anders Logg wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>> Any thoughts on adding > >>> > >>> virtual void compute_vertex_values(double* vertex_values) const = 0; > >>> > >>> to GenericFunction? It would make it simple to plot both Functions and > >>> Expressions. > >>> > >>> Garth > >> Yes, that would be ok. > > > > I'm working on this. > > > > OK. I had a quick look last night but it wasn't as straightforward as I > had anticipated since the mesh is not easily accessible. > > Would it make sense to have > > void compute_vertex_values(const Mesh& mesh, double* vertex_values) > const; > > ?
Yes, or rather: void compute_vertex_values(double* vertex_values, const Mesh& mesh); This is what I have implemented now. > One could then use a mesh which is different to the one associated with > a Function. This is useful when visualising higher-order functions. I have not implemented this part. We could add it but then we need two different implementations in the Function class, one that works through ufc::finite_elemement::interpolate_vertex_values and one that works through eval. There is an assertion now that checks that the mesh is the same. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
