Den Oct 16, 2013 kl. 9:17 PM skrev Anders Logg: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:00:08PM +0100, Chris Richardson wrote: >> On 16/10/2013 09:25, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>> Does anyone have an opinion on keeping or removing CGAL from DOLFIN? >>> Below are some pros and cons: >>> >>> - CGAL makes DOLFIN slow to build and builds use a lot of memory. >>> - CGAL is unpredictable in throwing errors (predictable in that it >>> will throw cryptic errors, unpredictable when or with which compiler). >>> - CGAL is difficult to understand and the latest version has very >>> cryptic interface changes. >>> - Almost all of the random DOLFIN buildbot failures are due to CGAL >>> mesh generation failures. >>> >>> + CGAL provides mesh generation for a variety of simple shape >>> combinations (the DOLFIN interface to CGAL is not rich enough for >>> anything serious). >> >> Agreed. Anyone serious will make their mesh independently, so CGAL >> is really just an annoying toy in this context... (!) > > That may be true, but simple also has a use.
I find the meshing of nontrivial shapes come in very handy in teaching. It looks much more impressive when I'm solving the Poisson equation on a combination of circles and pipes... Mikael > > It's an optional dependency, so why is it a big problem? > > -- > Anders > _______________________________________________ > fenics mailing list > [email protected] > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
