I would like the names to be as consistent with the poster as possible. After all, we are printing the UFL names in the poster next to the element names.
I see two options: 1. Either we keep the UFL names as suggested: P dP P RTe/RTf dP P N1e N1f dP P dP P BDMe/BDMf dP P N2e N2f dP Q dQ Q RTce/RTcf dQ Q Nce Ncf dQ S dPc S BDMce/BDMcf dPc S AAe AAf dPc 2. Or, as suggested but all uppercase: P DP P RTE/RTF DP P N1E N1F DP P DP P BDME/BDMF DP P N2E N2F DP Q DQ Q RTCE/RTCF DQ Q NCE NCF DQ S DPC S BDMCE/BDMCF DPC S AAE AAF DPC I think I would vote for the second option. -- Anders On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:20:21AM -0600, Douglas N Arnold wrote: > I think we should not insist on too rigorous a correspondence > between the names we use in the periodic table and the UFL element > names, since the needs are different. The former are intended to > make an accurate and visually appealing poster, and possibly to have > some unifying effect on usage by researchers, while UFL has many > other needs. > > Specifically, in my comment of 27 February at > > https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/ufl/pull-request/7/introduce-notation-for-the-periodic-table/diff > > I included an image showing how the names will look in the periodic > table (including subscripts) and then a possible pure text version > that could be used in UFL. Based on the discussion so far, I would > stick with the image for the poster, but appreciate that the > developers may need to make changes to the UFL version (two such > having been mentioned so far: changing dP to DP to avoid possible > confusion, and removing the c from BDMce to avoid redundancy with > the specification of the cell type, etc.). Hopefully the > differences can be made consistently. E.g., if you remove the "c" > (meaning "cubic variant") from BDM and RT, it should alo be removed > from the Nedelec cubical elements and dPc. > > -- Doug > > On 02/28/2014 04:30 AM, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:55:05AM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >>On 02/28/2014 09:41 AM, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>Other opinions? > >> > >>Would you consider dropping the c (or q/C/Q) for the BDMs/RTs on > >>cubes? In the UFL FiniteElement constructor, the cell is given > >>separately, so there is no need for the family name to indicate > >>this. Advantages would be: simpler names and greater possibility of > >>code independence wrt cell type. > > > >That would also be consistent with the use of P for both triangles and > >tetrahedra. > > > _______________________________________________ > fenics mailing list > [email protected] > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
