Is there a reason for which there is not an option in NonlinearVariationalSolver to choose how to impose boundary conditions (symmetric or not)?
As a user of PETScSNESSolver I completely agree with Patrick with the usefulness of an intermediate class or something similar. I think that there the current argument naming in PETScSNESSolver is misleading. In PETScSNESSolver::solve(NonlinearProblem, x), NonlinearProblem is actually a NonlinearDiscreteProblem. Hence the user must implement its own NonlinearDiscreteProblem to use directly PETScSNESSolver. If NonlinearDiscreteProblem was public, or at least accessible by PETScSNESSolver, one could easily overload PETScSNESSolver::solve to get as input a real NonlinearProblem (and not only the Discrete version as now). Perhaps it suffices to render PETScSNESSolver and NonlinearVariationalSolver friend classes? Corrado Le 30 janv. 2014 à 09:54, Patrick Farrell <[email protected]> a écrit : > On 29/01/14 21:45, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> I'd say that it's pointless > > Wouldn't the correct behaviour be to apply the BCs symmetrically? > >> and terribly misleading. > > I agree with you there. > > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ > fenics mailing list > [email protected] > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
