On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:49:54AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 10/02/11 10:24, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > On 02/10/2011 12:03 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> On 09/02/11 22:43, Anders Logg wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:11:40AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>> Hello! > >>>> > >>>> I am pretty sure the reason the Macbot still complains (mesh unit test) > >>>> is > >>>> that refine is broken for SWIG 2.0. > >>>> > >>>> I think it is some premature destruction of a refined mesh. I would > >>>> suggest we > >>>> implement a full shared_ptr version of the interface to get around this > >>>> problem. I have no clue of why it works for SWIG 1.3.40. Probably > >>>> because a > >>>> faulty implementation. > >>>> > >>>> I also suggest more developers upgrade to SWIG 2.0.1 and maybe one of the > >>>> linux build bots two? If it is only the Macbot that uses SWIG 2.0 it is > >>>> easily > >>>> to think it is some Mac specific error. > >>>> > >>>> Johan > >>> I plan to merge with main tomorrow if my buildbot is green. Then Marie > >>> also needs to merge (we have both touched refine.h/cpp). Then we can > >>> sort out the shared_ptrs. > >>> > >> I really don't get the approach to hierarchies. Mesh refinement was > >> simple, and now something simple has become complex (with bugs that are > >> hard to track down because of the introduced complexity). > >> > > > > I really do get the approach to hierarchies. Mesh refinement was and is > > simple, but dealing with the consequences of mesh refinement has never > > been. A couple of different designs regarding the refinement of function > > spaces, functions, forms etc have been tested over the last year. I (and > > the AdaptiveSolver) find the current Hierarchical design transparent, > > elegant, and very much to the point. > > > > What is the function names are changed to 'adapt' (or similar)? 'refine' > is not very accurate because a mesh, etc, could well be refined or > coarsened, or nodes could just be relocated. > > With 'adapt', the purpose would be clear and it would sit nicely in the > directory 'adaptivity'. > > In mesh, we can keep refine as it was, and at some point add coarsen and > a mixture of refinement and coarsen.
Yes, 'adapt' sounds like a more suitable name and 'refine' could be reserved for meshes. We could have adapt(mesh) and refine(mesh). Only the former would touch the hierarchy. Does that sound good? -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
