On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:47:46PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 04/07/11 16:44, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:39:04PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> I'm not sold on the NonlinearVariationalProblem interface. I would > >> prefer a constructor takes the Jacobian as an argument. It's much > >> cleaner to do things at construction and removes the need to later > >> attach the Jacobian. > > > > The point is that one should be able to define a nonlinear problem > > with or without a Jacobian. Not all nonlinear solvers need a Jacobian. > > > > That's why I wrote 'a' constructor. We can have two versions.
Yes, that's an option. The drawback with that is that it would double the number of constructors (from 6 to 12) but it's a small thing to fix. I wouldn't mind moving it to the constructor. -- Anders > > I agree that it's in general cleaner to require as much data as > > possible at the time of construction, but think that the handling of > > the Jacobian data is quite clean: it's a shared pointer that may be > > null and the nonlinear solver can call has_jacobian to check whether > > it has been specified. > > > > Which we can still do with two constructors. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
