For clarification: will these names be aliases in addition to the
existing ones? If so, I'm fine with either.
--
Marie
On 03/03/2014 10:47 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
