On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Roy Stogner <royst...@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> After talking to Paul and looking at our first crack at the code, it's
> starting to become apparent that these two classes ought to be
> template-parameter-distinguished versions of the *same* class.
> There's just a ton of redundant code otherwise.
>
> What we'd be doing would look something like
>
> template <typename OutputType>
> class FEGenericBase {...};
>
> typedef FEGenericBase<Real> FEBase;
> typedef FEGenericBase<RealGradient> FEVectorBase;
Urk... I guess my own preference would have been for *fewer* templates
in the FE hierarchy rather than more, but if you say this is a good
design I trust your judgment.
Also, it might be handy if we could keep using the equivalent of
FEBase::build() in the new system... if the base class is templated,
does this functionality become trickier to implement?
> Which would then allow us to add a default template parameter to FE
> giving something like
>
> template <unsigned int Dim, FEFamily T, typename
> OutputType=FEGenericBase<OutputOf<T>::type>
> class FE : public FEBase {...};
Hmm, so then FE is *not* derived from this new FEGenericBase class at
all, but rather an untemplated FEBase class, similar to what we have
now?
--
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
