On Wed, 30 May 2012, John Peterson wrote: > It might be possible to have a more complete separation between the > mapping aspects of the FE class and the approximation space aspects, > i.e. have an "FEMap" base class and corresponding hierarchy?
I personally would be thrilled if we could generalize to non-Lagrange maps. I haven't drunk the NURBS-approximation-spaces Flavor-Aid yet, but supporting NURBS geometric mappings would be fantastic. I think it's a red herring from the vector valued elements questions, however. The (Lagrange-or-NURBs-or-high_p-etc) option on mappings from reference to physical space ought to be completely independent of the (covariant-or-contravariant-or-piola) option for the subsequently induced mappings from reference to physical vectors (or tensors). > But there's no reason to worry about that potential design change > while you are already immersed in creating FEAbstract... maybe it > could be looked at again later if it seems useful. Agreed. --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
