On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Also, I would suggest to derive SparseMatrix from ShellMatrix rather than >>> vice versa. This could actually make SparseShellMatrix unnecessary. >>> This >>> is of course an advantage of the unification. >> >> This one I disagree with. Inheritance should always follow the "is a" >> organizational semantic, and a SparseMatrix (as we now define it) is >> most definitely *not* a ShellMatrix. > > Yes, but both of them are a MatrixBase. > > Yes, it is easier to add new classes when someone else has already > volunteered to do the work of writing them. ;-)
In all seriousness, I still don't see the compelling argument for this extra base class. You still have to do dynamic casting in the solve function, for example. -- John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users
