On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:36:30PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Wednesday August 31 2011 23:16:15 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:16:23PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > Disclaimer: I have no clue of what you are doing :) > > : > > :-) I'm trying to get boundary indicators working again (in > > > > parallel). In the process, I'm making some changes and extensions that > > were suggested (not using MeshData as primary storage). The changes > > involve the addition of two new classes: MeshDomains and MeshMarkers > > (used internally by MeshDomains but also useful in itself). Will > > describe this all in more detail once it's working. > > Ok. > > > > If you want to expose 'set' to Python you rather choose another name... > > > > > > set_one, set_value? > > > > I suspected as much but couldn't figure out why. So why? > > Well, it is probably not that bad after all. I just recall set not beeing used > because it is a reserved word in Python in matplotlib. But it looks like it > has changed to actually using set (resembles set in matlab), instead of setp > which they had previously...
How can something used in matplotlib have any effect on member functions in the MeshFunction class? Anyway, I'll change it to set_value. We already have set_all so it's a better match. -- Anders > > The important point is not the set function but the set_marker > > function that needs to exist in both MeshFunction and MeshMarkers to > > get a template function to run with both so we avoid reimplementation > > of that function. Then it felt natural to add a set function as well. > > Ok. > > Johan > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
