Johan Hake wrote: > 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! >
Would these difficulties be resolved if we use the native SWIG wrappers for std::vector instead of homemade versions case-by-case? I know that the SWIG std::vector wrapper was removed to reduce the size of the wrapper code, but perhaps the same could be achieved by using more %ignore? Garth > > 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
