On 21. nov. 2011, at 21:52, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 08:46:13PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> On 21 November 2011 13:07, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:55:43PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: >>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:49:42PM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20. nov. 2011, at 23:31, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Is anyone using the Function constructor that takes a vector as input >>>>>> argument? >>>>>> >>>>>> Function u(V, x); >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Does it work? In parallel? >>>> >>>> Does it not work to instead use >>>> >>>> x = u.vector() >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> If you need it, we should keep it but add an error message that it >>>> doesn't work in parallel, unless it does... >>> >>> Any more input on this? There are several options: >>> >>> 1. Remove this constructor >>> >>> 2. Throw an error when running in parallel >>> >>> 3. Check that the input vector makes sense >>> >>> The last one is problematic since I don't see an easy way to perform >>> the check, other than calling get_local and having it fail. >>> >> >> I haven't heard any reason why it can't be removed. We may need to fix >> assignment (re earlier discussion on assign) to just copy values and >> not the whole object so that a user can get the vector and then assign >> values to it without messing up the ghosting. > > Sounds good, but I want to wait for Marie to comment before I remove > it. She is using it. > > Marie? Does it work for you to use x = u.vector()? > Probably. However removing the constructor would be changing parts of the basic interface, which I think is a bad idea. Add a warning if you want to deprecate it later. -- Marie > -- > Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
