On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 07:38:25AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > > Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > > Anders Logg wrote: > > >> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:46:40PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > >>> Anders Logg wrote: > > >>>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 09:31:34PM +0100, DOLFIN wrote: > > >>>>> changeset: 7421:45550c2a40bc > > >>>>> parent: 7417:be579bc40bf9 > > >>>>> user: Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> > > >>>>> date: Thu Nov 05 21:29:09 2009 +0100 > > >>>>> description: > > >>>>> Remove Mesh member from DofMap class. This will hopefully reduce some > > >>>>> headaches related to adaptive refinement of functions and function > > >>>>> spaces. > > >>>>> At the least, it's a simplification. > > >>> We need to sort out the two constructors > > >>> > > >>> DofMap(boost::shared_ptr<ufc::dof_map> ufc_dofmap, > > >>> Mesh& dolfin_mesh); > > >>> > > >>> DofMap(boost::shared_ptr<ufc::dof_map> ufc_dofmap, > > >>> const Mesh& dolfin_mesh); > > >>> > > >>> on the Python side since I recall that SWIG doesn't distinguish between > > >>> the two. I can't remember how we did this. Did we just tell SWIG to > > >>> ignore one of the two? > > >> I don't see that we have made any distinction before (grepping for > > >> DofMap in the SWIG files). > > >> > > >> Do you see any problems as a result of the change to the constructors? > > >> > > > > > > SWIG warning messages that one hides the other. > > > > > > > Has anyone tried fixing this? I had a quick go but didn't succeed. > > Not yet. But I will have a look.
Should be fixed now. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
