On Monday 30 November 2009 12:11:34 Anders Logg wrote: > 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?
Yes. At least the amount of time I feel correct using on it. It is a bit more nasty than I first anticipated. But I have good hope! Johan > 2. The strategy for selecting degree in FFC. Please comment on this > (in another thread I just opened). > > 3. ? > > -- > Anders > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
