On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:33:25PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > 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?
Marie, I think this should work: u = Function(V) u.vector()[:] = x where x is the solution you get from the eigenvalue problem. Can you see if that works? -- Anders > >> 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. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
