On 16 September 2010 22:45, Johan Hake <johan.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday September 16 2010 13:33:03 Anders Logg wrote: >> 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. > > If I had a 2D mesh and it had a method area, I would definetly think that it > would return the area of that mesh. But that might be just me...
Anders is talking about the area of Face/Facet of a 2D mesh which is where this discussion originated from. Kristian > Johan >> >> -- >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
