On 25 May 2011 18:19, Marie E. Rognes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/25/2011 05:01 PM, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >> >> There has been a regression in the feature set of dolfin_utils, and I >> cannot see in the bzr log any sign of this being intentional. > > > If you are referring to the wrapper code generation (which I assume you > are), yes, it was heavily refactored in the spring. No features were > intentionally removed; however, I did not emphasize keeping features that > didn't seem used. > >> >> Form names are ignored, numbers being used instead to name classes >> "Form_0" instead of "Form_a" etc. >> >> I find the Form_name naming much more useful than Form_0, and that's >> why there is form name input in the first place. >> > > This might very well be a bug rather than an intentional removal. > > >> But the names are still used in the typedef generation, so I'm >> guessing ffc doesn't use the form name feature at all? > > > Probably not. All the generated demo form files for DOLFIN were identical > before and after the rewrite. > > Could you add a test for the case(s) you are interested in?
Didn't get around to this today. The test directories in dolfin are rather sparse, for example the fem/ unittest folder is empty. Where am I supposed to place new tests? All the sfc demos are now functional again in the latest dev version and some of the cpp ones use this feature. Martin _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
