On 2014-01-30 09:37, Corrado Maurini wrote:
Is there a reason for which there is not an option in
NonlinearVariationalSolver to choose how to impose boundary conditions
(symmetric or not)?
As a user of PETScSNESSolver I completely agree with Patrick with the
usefulness of an intermediate class or something similar.
I think that there the current argument naming in PETScSNESSolver is
misleading.
In PETScSNESSolver::solve(NonlinearProblem, x), NonlinearProblem is
actually a NonlinearDiscreteProblem.
That's not correct. NonlinearDiscreteProblem is a NonlinearProblem.
Hence the user must implement its own NonlinearDiscreteProblem to use
directly PETScSNESSolver.
No. A user implements a NonlinearProblem.
If NonlinearDiscreteProblem was public, or at least accessible by
PETScSNESSolver, one could easily overload PETScSNESSolver::solve to
get as input a real NonlinearProblem (and not only the Discrete
version as now).
Perhaps it suffices to render PETScSNESSolver and
NonlinearVariationalSolver friend classes?
This doesn't make sense. The design is simple: a user implements a
NonlinearProblem.
Garth
Corrado
Le 30 janv. 2014 à 09:54, Patrick Farrell
<[email protected]> a écrit :
On 29/01/14 21:45, Garth N. Wells wrote:
I'd say that it's pointless
Wouldn't the correct behaviour be to apply the BCs symmetrically?
and terribly misleading.
I agree with you there.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
