On 9/17/10 3:25 AM, Johan Hake wrote: >>>>>> 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?
The above, for me, would really be a lot less ambiguous. > What whith: > > measure(std::string type) > > which then takes a "volume", "area", or "length" argument together with an > optional MeshFunction and subdomain? This would likely just reintroduce the problem. The original concern here seems to have stemmed from the contextual meaning of word "area." Harish _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
