On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:13:43AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > On 7 July 2011 23:44, Johan Hake <johan.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday July 7 2011 12:21:26 Anders Logg wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 02:20:44PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >> > Is the plan for 1.0-beta to fix > >> > > >> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ffc/+bug/787010 > >> > > >> > and then release? > >> > >> Yes + decide on the interface for NonlinearVariationalProblem. > >> > >> I think that should be all. > >> > >> It would be good to hear more comments on the two suggestions: > >> > >> 1. (current) > >> > >> NonlinearVariationalProblen(lhs, rhs, u, bcs, [J]) > >> > >> This is consistent with LinearVariationalProblem and the solve() > >> functions; same order of arguments. > >> > >> 2. (Garth) > >> > >> NonlinearVariationalProblen(lhs, u, bcs, [J]) > >> > >> This removes the unnecessary rhs argument which always has to be > >> zero. > >> > >> I think there are good arguments for both but not very strong so it's > >> a matter of taste. > > > > If: > > > > The point is that it makes the interface for all variational problems > > (linear or nonlinear) the same: > > > > is the only reason, I go with Garth. > > > > Johan > > If it made the signatures interchangeable
How do you mean? >, a dummy argument > could be worth it, but as it doesn't, +1 to the Garth version. ok. -- 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
