On 10/02/11 11:54, Anders Logg wrote: > 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? >
It would stop my complaining ;). Garth > -- > Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
