On mardi 7 juin 2011, Konstantinos Poulios wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Yves Renard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On mardi 7 juin 2011, Konstantinos Poulios wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I recently realized that the cartesian mesh constructor in the > >> python/matlab interface uses parallelepiped_linear_geotrans as > >> transformation, couldn't it use parallelepiped_geotrans instead? > >> Shouldn't the user have the possibility to choose which transformation > >> to use? If there are no objections I could add an optional flag to the > >> cartesian mesh constructor to let the user choose a non linear > >> transformation so that the generated mesh could be reshaped > >> afterwards. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Kostas > > > > No objection. This is an interesting option. > > > > Yves. > > > > -- > > > > Yves Renard ([email protected]) tel : (33) 04.72.43.87.08 > > Pole de Mathematiques, INSA-Lyon fax : (33) 04.72.43.85.29 > > 20, rue Albert Einstein > > 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, FRANCE > > http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~renard > > > > --------- > > would it make sense to call it like: > > m = getfem.Mesh('cartesian non-affine', ....) > > ? > > I am not sure if the term non-affine is correct here. "Bilinear" would > be correct for only two dimensions, right? Any better suggestion? > > Kostas
"cartesian nonlinear transformation" would be more explicit but a little bit long. May be also "cartesian multi-linear" or "cartesian Q1" ... Well, "cartesian non-affine" is not so bad ! Yves. -- Yves Renard ([email protected]) tel : (33) 04.72.43.87.08 Pole de Mathematiques, INSA-Lyon fax : (33) 04.72.43.85.29 20, rue Albert Einstein 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, FRANCE http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~renard --------- _______________________________________________ Getfem-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
