On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 01:27:07PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Thursday September 16 2010 13:15:51 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 01:10:55PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Thursday September 16 2010 13:03:44 Anders Logg wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:51:28PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > On Thursday September 16 2010 12:27:57 Anders Logg wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:23:48PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday September 16 2010 11:46:02 Anders Logg wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:24:34AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I added the method area to the Face class. I guess a Face is > > > > > > > > > always a triangle so it should be safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There might be other methods that can be usefull like > > > > > > > > > normal? Others? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably but can't think of any more right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we do the same for Facet, but then check for > > > > > > > > > topological dimension before making the computation, a la > > > > > > > > > the generalized volume in CellTypes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Facet should have normal but not area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wont add these now. I first thought they were straight forward, > > > > > > > but all kindoff R^1, R^2, R^3 stuff needs to be checked for. > > > > > > > Leave it for now... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Added a blueprint! > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought I already did that. We have Cell.normal() which should > > > > > > handle that. > > > > > > > > > > That just calls normal of TriangleCell or TetrahedronCell. > > > > > TriangleCell only returns a normal for topological dimension 2. > > > > > > > > Isn't that enough? What else do you need? > > > > > > For a Face I need to check if it is in R^2 or R^3. > > > > > > > > It is really not difficult, it just took some more time than I > > > > > anticipated, and I do not need the feature. I just needed area :) > > > > > > > > Oh so you didn't need anything else. ;-) > > > > > > Nope! Not for the moment. > > > > > > But now it is at least straight forward to iterate over faces of a 3D > > > mesh and calculate the area of a certain boundary domain given by a > > > MeshFunction :) > > > > Perhaps we could have > > > > double::Mesh::area(const FacetFunction& boundary_markers, uint boundary) > > const; > > + > > Why not add a volume method while at it? Maybe we should let these be free > functions as it does not always make sense to get an area or volume of a mesh?
I don't know what the dimension-independent terms are but most people would probably accept "area" as meaning the length of the boundary of a 2D domain. -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
