On Monday October 25 2010 03:01:55 Marie Rognes wrote: > On 21. okt. 2010 17:22, Johan Hake wrote: > > From a user perspective I think this is good. The user provides the > > GoalFunctional, which is what she should care about. > > > > 1) What if a user does not provide any goal functional, will a default > > be > > > > provided? > > No.
Ok. > > 2) Will it be possible to declare several goal functionals in one form? > > Several goal functionals in one form? I don't quite see what you mean: > one form would define one goal functional. > > Do you mean several goal functionals in one form file? Yes. > That could be > possible, but I'm not convinced that the added complexity would be worth > while. > > First and foremost, I think the ffc interface should be > > compile_with_error_control(F, M, ...) > > as in one equation (F) (or (a, L)) + one goal (M). > > The simplest parser of a ufl file would then use reserved names (a, L, > M) for identification. Adding more intelligence to the parser could be > possible, as in mapping > > (a, L, M0, M1) -> > > compile_with_error_control(a, L, M0) > compile_with_error_control(a, L, M1) Ok! Johan _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
