On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:08:52PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > No. Parameter names can be easily listed via > > > > info(assembler.parameters, True) > > > > That is at runtime. Not when writing code.
Just look at the function default_parameters where they are listed? > > Then one gets a complete list of which parameters can be set, > > including possible values for the parameters. We also get automatic > > range checking. > > > >> Parameters are suitable for options that are passed on the command > >> line, are optional and/or might be shared amongst objects. > >> > >> Using strings over members functions/data unnecessarily is a > >> nightmare. It took a lot over work to untangle the crazy string-based > >> storage that was used for parallel mesh data so that we could move the > >> parallel meshes forward. > > > > I don't see how that is relevant. > > Unnecessary use of string-base naming over methods over explicit, > named members and data is a poor design and makes working with code > confusing. I completely disagree. The parameter system is good design much better than cluttering classes with parameter-like variables. Another advantage of the parameter system is easier initialization. It's a nightmare to initialize a long list of parameter variables in each overloaded constructor. (Does not apply here since there's only one constructor in this specific case, but I'm talking general terms, see below). > > I very strongly think we should use > > the parameter system and not start to clutter the classes with flag > > member variables. > > > > Clutter? It's four lines of code, and a lot more than that was > removed. Using parameters adds more garbage. I agree the class in question (AssemblerBase.h/.cpp) looks very pretty and neat, not much clutter there, and superbly documented. I'll give you that, but it's a step away from our usual practice which is avoiding member variables when we can, and sticking the parameters into the parameter system. > I strongly oppose using the parameter system in this case because it's > pointless. If someone else wants to clean up the classes and implement > all the functionality that I need (and they do it this week), then I > could live with the use of parameters ;). It's an easy fix to use the parameter system, as you say it's only 4 lines of code. ;-) -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
