On 22 November 2011 21:30, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > 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? >
I don't think that is ideal. I building now with the constructors commented out to see how many changes would be required. 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
