On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:58:38PM -0000, Garth Wells wrote: > Blueprint changed by Garth Wells: > > Whiteboard changed: > Implications for PyDOLFIN: > Using std::vectors instead of double* in exchanging data will force us to > copy data in the python interface. Sometimes this is OK but sometimes we > loose functionality, for example copying Mesh::coordinates does not make > sense. > > When do we copy Mesh::coordinates into a Vector? > > JH: Never(?) I misinterpreted the design suggestion to change all > argument handling from double * to std::vector. (Mesh::coordinates might > still be a bad example for this :P) > + > + GNW: I suggest that we use dolfin::Array. This provides safety and a > + simple interface to Python.
Yes. I think we should just change to Array everywhere. The only problem is it requires some work since we have used std::vector in quite a few places. I count ca 150 occurences of std::vector in the C++ interface. A couple of more issues: 1. We need a constructor for Array that takes std::vector as input which is useful for C++ programmers that don't rely on dolfin::Array as their basic container. 2. The ODE solvers use real* but could easily switch to Array<real>. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
