I object to changing definitions based on that it would work out nicely for one particular equation. The current definition yields a scalar jump for both scalar and vector valued quantities, and the definition was chosen for a reason. I'm pretty sure it's in use. Adding a tensor_jump on the other hand wouldn't break any older programs.
Maybe Kristian has an opinion here, cc to get his attention. Martin 9. juni 2014 20:16 skrev "Anders Logg" <[email protected]> følgende: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:30:09AM +0200, Jan Blechta wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 11:10:12 +0200 > > Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > For vector elements, the jump() operator in UFL is defined as follows: > > > > > > dot(v('+'), n('+')) + dot(v('-'), n('-')) > > > > > > I'd like to argue that it should instead be implemented like so: > > > > > > outer(v('+'), n('+')) + outer(v('-'), n('-')) > > > > This inconsistency has been already encountered by users > > http://fenicsproject.org/qa/359/discontinuous-galerkin-jump-operators > > Interesting! I hadn't noticed. > > Are there any objections to changing this definition in UFL? > > -- > Anders > _______________________________________________ > fenics mailing list > [email protected] > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics >
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
