On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Roy Stogner
wrote:
>
> We take MeshBase& as a necessary argument for half a dozen functions,
> we're going to need a MeshBase for the new ghosting functor APIs
> too...
>
> Plus, we're not actually capable of handling multiple mesh objects
> from the same DofMap
We take MeshBase& as a necessary argument for half a dozen functions,
we're going to need a MeshBase for the new ghosting functor APIs
too...
Plus, we're not actually capable of handling multiple mesh objects
from the same DofMap except in the case where those meshes are
basically identical: we c
Might be a slight complication for unit testing but that's no reason not to do
the right thing...
On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:01 PM, John Peterson
mailto:jwpeter...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Roy Stogner
mailto:royst...@ices.utexas.edu>> wrote:
We take MeshBase& as a ne
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote:
Might be a slight complication for unit testing but that's no reason not to do
the right thing...
On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:01 PM, John Peterson wrote:
> Sounds reasonable to me. The only reason off the top of my head
> would be if it wa
