On 12/06/11 22:54, Anders Logg wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:47:10PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote: >> I'm on a cell phone and can't engage in any discussions but I just >> want to throw something in. Marie and I discussed at some point >> another option which is to write everything as F = 0 and let UFL >> compute J even for linear problems. J would be a optional >> variable. Then we could have a common interface and also a common >> solver. >
I think that this would be a nice option, but I don't think that it can work without a more elaborate interface than just pde = VariationalProblem(F, bcs) because UFL cannot know which coefficient in a form is unknown, and therefore which function to compute the linearisation with respect to. Moreover, - UFL cannot compute the linearisation for all forms - In some cases it's not desirable to let UFL do the linearisastion > Any further thoughts on this? It's important we get this right. > > I can live with > > LinearVariationalProblem > NonlinearVariationalProblem > > if everyone else thinks that's the best option, but don't really like > it since it's very long. Another option (if we don't go for the F = 0 > option) is > > VariationalProblem > NonlinearVariationalProblem > I prefer to the long one. I don't see any advantage in favouring a short name over a more explicit and readable name. Garth > -- > Anders > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
