On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion > >>>>with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for > >>>>mixed spaces is not optimal. > >>>> > >>>>Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed > >>>>function space" as a direct sum, > >>>> > >>>>X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W}, > >>>> > >>>>it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian product, > >>>> > >>>>X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W} > >>>> > >>>>It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the > >>>>operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces. > >>>> > >>>>That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have > >>>>recently been added), > >>>> > >>>>X = {v + w : v in V, w in W} > >>>> > >>>>The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W scaled > >>>>P3 bubbles. > >>>> > >>>>In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation: > >>>> > >>>>+ <--> + > >>>>* <--> \times > >>>> > >>>>It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is > >>>> > >>>>+ <--> \oplus > >>>>? <--> + > >>>> > >>>>Thoughts? > >>>Agree. > >>> > >>Me too. > >> > >>Garth > > > >ok. Let's change then. > > > >It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it? > > I can fix ffc.
I was hoping for that. :-) > (Have no permission for ufl) You do now. ;-) -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
