On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It doesn't look like there's currently a way to pass user data down to >> the various fields in PetscFEM. Can I add an extra argument to each >> function, or is that part of the API going to change in a way that >> would obviate the extra argument? > > > That is by design. Here is the rationale. I want to be able to use CUDA or > OpenCL > to evaluate these low-level FEM integration routines, so you can't pass in > arbitrary context. > > I really don't think we should need arbitrary information at the lowest level > integration. > Right now you can pass in information using auxiliary fields. How would you > use > other stuff?
Well, you're probably not going to like application 1, which is passing around PyObject*'s so I can write little FEM explorations in numpy. Is the field support the right thing to do for constant fields, or integer valued constant fields? Geoffrey
