On 13 Mar 2014, at 21:36, Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected]> wrote:
> For nonaffine geometries it would be much cleaner if the mesh coordinates > were always represented by a Function. > I would suggest starting the discussion with what we need, and leave how we do it (i.e., implementation aspects) to the next step. For example, what maps do we want to support? (I would like user maps to be possible, which might not be polynomial functions.) Do we want optimised support for the common and practical case that only cells on the boundary are non-affine? Garth > In the initial iteration this can be made working by essentially ignoring the > mesh.geometry() in the assembly, but to get that working it must be special > cased in various places around dolfin. > > So it would be much nicer if MeshGeometry could simply be a Function. Or > optionally have a Function, maybe that's easier to do. The problem is > circular dependencies, which are in a way caused by the grouping of geometry > and topology in the mesh. > > I don't really have a question at this point, just want to let everyone know > that this is an issue that needs considering from various angles. > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > fenics mailing list > [email protected] > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
