On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 09:51:25PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > Anders Logg wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:26:07PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:23:58PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: > >>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:21:18PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Anders Logg wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:32:03PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>>>>> It would be good to make a release of DOLFIN/FFL/UFL next week with the > >>>>>> new syntax for Constants and Expressions. Are there any pressing issues > >>>>>> which need to be addressed before making a new release? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Garth > >>>>> I agree. Let's make a release as soon as possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> The only things I see missing are > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. std::vector argument in eval. I see you've started on this. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. Getting the buildbot running in on form or another. > >>>>> > >>>> If we don't get this running in time, I'm happy if we run the tests by > >>>> hand on a few OSes. > >>> Me too. > >>> > >>>>> Andre Massing has prepared a major bundle on the CGAL stuff but that > >>>>> can wait until after 0.9.5, but it would be good to do it immediately > >>>>> after so we get that done. > >>>>> > >>>> Perhaps he could publish it first as a personal branch on Launchpad? > >>> Yes, it would be a good opportunity to test that feature. > >>> > >>> What do you think Andre? Could you give it a try? > >> Another thing to figure out is the logic/algorithm for selecting > >> coefficient element degrees. > >> > >> We have another thread going on this. > > > > Another thing that we might want to fix in the new release is the > > ability to do > > > > return (foo, bar) > > > > instead of > > > > values[0] = foo > > values[1] = bar > > > > in the Expression class in Python. > > > > Johan hinted that it would be possible to implement this. > > > > On the other hand, one can argue that the simplified Expression > > interface (using C++ string expressions) is already simple enough for > > simple cases and that one should need to assign to values when > > subclassing Expression to make it consistent with the C++ interface. > > > > Opinions? > > > > I like to keep the consistency with C++, plus Expressions which demand a > subclass in place of JIT are usually reasonably complicated, so it may > in practice be more like > > return (............................................, > ......................................)
Agreed. Let's keep the eval interface as is. What remains before a release? I can see these two: 1. Getting the la unit tests (get_row) working. Are you working on this Johan? 2. The strategy for selecting degree in FFC. Please comment on this (in another thread I just opened). 3. ? -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
