On 03/05/10 08:48, Kent Andre wrote:
I am in favour of a(u,v), simply because it is the way I am used to
read and write it. Also, very few users need to care about this due to
the high-level syntax in UFL which implicitly takes care of the
ordering.
They do need to worry about it on the DOLFIN side with the creation of a
Form:
Poissin::Bilinearform a(V0, V1);
Garth
Kent
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 09:23 +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
There doesn't seem to be any overwhelming pressure to change the
notation from a(v, u) to a(u, v). More opinions?
In summary, the options are:
1. Keep a(v, u) so that A_ij = a(phi_i, phi_j)
2. Change to a(u, v) and do some kind of swapping of indices
3. Change to a(u, v) and change to A_ij = a(phi_i, phi_j)
Option 3 seems unreasonable (although one could argue this is where
the problem lies, columns should be numbered first).
--
Anders
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
