On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> We need a richer field interface. Some way for a client of DM to discover > vector and tensor structure. Possibly also (eventually) a way to solve > equations of state so that we can formulate reduced problems in > non-conservative variables. > I have fields, and numbers of field components. That is not enough to do what you suggest, but I don't think that is necessary. We do not need to know the different between a vector and pseudo-vector, etc. I think we just need sizes. Matt > On Feb 24, 2012 2:19 PM, "Matthew Knepley" <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/518ff70e8a0a >>> >>> Matt, I want to get rid of these conditionals, not add more. We should >>> have a DM base interface for getting fields on which to split, that common >>> interface should _replace_ the DMComposite specialization. >>> >> >> I agree. However, I won't put anything in until I do it by hand once. >> >> Also, I was tempted to just promote DMGetGlobalISes(), but its not quite >> right. I am planning >> to put the IS method in PetscSection. I am hoping eventually DMDA uses >> PetscSection for >> layout. >> >> Matt >> >> -- >> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their >> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their >> experiments lead. >> -- Norbert Wiener >> > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120224/4c0af43a/attachment.html>
