On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:16:54PM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > On 11/22/2011 09:55 PM, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:45:30PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >>On 21 Nov 2011, at 21:53, "Marie E. Rognes"<m...@simula.no> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>On 21. nov. 2011, at 21:52, Anders Logg<l...@simula.no> wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 08:46:13PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>>>>On 21 November 2011 13:07, Anders Logg<l...@simula.no> wrote: > >>>>>>On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:55:43PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>>>>>On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:49:42PM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On 20. nov. 2011, at 23:31, Anders Logg<l...@simula.no> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Is anyone using the Function constructor that takes a vector as input > >>>>>>>>>argument? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Function u(V, x); > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Yes. > >>>>>>>Does it work? In parallel? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Does it not work to instead use > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> x = u.vector() > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>If you need it, we should keep it but add an error message that it > >>>>>>>doesn't work in parallel, unless it does... > >>>>>>Any more input on this? There are several options: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>1. Remove this constructor > >>>>>> > >>>>>>2. Throw an error when running in parallel > >>>>>> > >>>>>>3. Check that the input vector makes sense > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The last one is problematic since I don't see an easy way to perform > >>>>>>the check, other than calling get_local and having it fail. > >>>>>> > >>>>>I haven't heard any reason why it can't be removed. We may need to fix > >>>>>assignment (re earlier discussion on assign) to just copy values and > >>>>>not the whole object so that a user can get the vector and then assign > >>>>>values to it without messing up the ghosting. > >>>>Sounds good, but I want to wait for Marie to comment before I remove > >>>>it. She is using it. > >>>> > >>>>Marie? Does it work for you to use x = u.vector()? > >>>> > >>>Probably. However removing the constructor would be changing parts of the > >>>basic interface, which I think is a bad idea. > >>> > >>>Add a warning if you want to deprecate it later. > >>> > >>Isn't the time to make an interface change now rather than later? > > I would say that the time to make an interface change before > 1.0 has passed: I see more value in sticking to > to what we have claimed, than in fixing this single instance. > > >True, but last time we discussed this was 1 hour or so before the > >release of 1.0-rc1. Now we have a whole week to 1.0-rc2... :-) > > > >Marie, can you check again if that constructor is necessary? > > I'm typically using it for the same as the dolfin la/eigenvalue demo > is using it for. > Do you have a replacement syntax available? > > That said, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this.
Is everyone ok with throwing an error that it doesn't work in parallel? -- 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
