On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:57:17PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > 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
If the built-in wrappers work, I suggest we use them instead of the our homemade versions even if the code increases if that makes the wrapper code easier to maintain. -- 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
