On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:13:01PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > 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
I agree it might be confusing. Perhaps measure() and boundary_measure() would work? -- 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
