Anders Logg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:47:53AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> We added some time ago >> >> dof_map::max_local_dimension() >> >> and perhaps we also need >> >> finite_element::max_local_dimension() >> >> and >> >> finite_element::local_dimension(const ufc_cell& ) >> >> I have a problem for which the number of dofs an element has can grow >> during a computation. You may say that this is then a different element, >> but that would make it hard to handle in DOLFIN and hard to generate >> code for. >> >> Here's an example of an inconsistency. In dolfin::Function, we >> initialise some scratch space for the dof map based on the element space >> dimension, >> >> dofs = new uint[element.space_dimension()]; >> for (uint i = 0; i < element.space_dimension(); i++) >> dofs[i] = 0; >> >> whereas is dolfin::UFC we use dof_map::max_local_dimension(). > > Yes, it would be natural to have max_ in both and an optional cell > argument. > > But for the finite element class, it would be better to have > > unsigned int max_space_dimension() const; > unsigned int space_dimension(const cell& cell) const; > > rather than (max_)local_dimension, since there is always only one > dimension for an element (not local and global). >
Yes, these names are what I intended. We should list things as Blueprints on Launchpad and pick a date on which to discuss what should and shouldn't be in the next UFC release. Otherwise things bounce around for a long time. Garth > -- > Anders > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > DOLFIN-dev mailing list > DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
