On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Benny Malengier <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, next question would be, can I use the nicer new notation suitable for > coupling, and nevertheless sweep the coupled equation? But sweep requires a > var option, so that seems not possible on the coupled equation, but perhaps > is still possible on the seperate equations (would be nice if the coupled > equation var could be passed in some way ...). So I could envision, doing one > solve on the coupled equation, then doing sweep equation per equation, and > continuing that till low residuals are obtained. Short answer is that both sweep() and solve() take a var= argument for backwards compatibility, but if you specify a var= argument to your equation terms (coupled or not), then you don’t need to pass the argument to sweep() or solve() (in fact, should not). > But then the nagging question of how correct everything is pops up off > course, and you need to put in the effort of verifying and checking... There’s no cure for that, I’m afraid (and I wouldn’t trust it if there was) _______________________________________________ fipy mailing list [email protected] http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy [ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/fipy ]
