On 29 April 2010 15:52, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:49:30PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:On 29 April 2010 15:43, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 02:21:49PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >> >>On 28/04/10 17:46, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: >>> >>> >>>On 28 April 2010 18:41, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 06:33:36PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On 28 April 2010 18:13, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>Sounds good, I hope Kristian can give you some instructions on what >>>>>>you can help out with. >>>>> >>>>>Sure, we're still in the process of figuring out exactly how the >>>>>format should be, but I think the demos might be the easiest place >>>>>to start. Do we want to recategorize the demos as suggested in the >>>>>blueprint, or should we just start adding all the demos that we have >>>>>in DOLFIN and keep the directory structure? >>>> >>>>I think some recategorization is necessary, but I don't know which is >>>>best: to first add them and then move them around of first decide on >>>>the categories and then add the demos. >>> >>>Maybe we don't need to add all of them before we have a better idea >>>about the categories. >>>I don't think we'll get it right the first time anyway though. >>> >>>>Have you planned which categories should go into the programmer's >>>>reference? We should probably try to match those categories with the >>>>demos and link to them. >>> >>>No, not yet, but I think the structure in the DOLFIN source tree is >>>pretty logical. >>>The question is if we can match everything up with a demo, although it >>>would be nice if we could. >>> >> >>I'm not so sure that this is possible/sensible. The demos >>'demonstrate' how to solve various problems and how to use various >>features. Shouldn't the programmers reference document the >>interface? > >I think there's also room for simple demos that illustrate the use >of basic classes like Mesh, MeshFunction, input/output, linear >algebra, parameters etc like we have now, without necessarily solving >a PDE. Yes, sure. The example code in the programmer's reference should just cover one function and the immediate usage, but then we can link to a demo that puts the use in a more elaborate context. KristianI guess the difference is that the programmer's reference can contain code snippets (which probably won't run without extra stuff added) but the demos must be stand-alone programs that do all that extra stuff (like actually creating a mesh before using it).
Yes, exactly. That's a good definition, let's stick to that. Kristian
-- Anders -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkvZjw8ACgkQTuwUCDsYZdGNxACgmLUmNJRdtnaQ8kggOLmu/rMH FMQAoJfr9zTD3S44JRUtQLrP2PPU18b3 =0WnK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
