On 10 June 2014 14:58, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected]> writes: > > However the current definition of jump is well defined, documented in > > several publications, and with user codes depending on its behaviour, > > so changing it is not a good idea. > > Unless I'm completely missing the thread, the current definition treats > a contravariant vector as covariant (a covector). This is definitely > not what was intended in the Unified DG paper, they just implicitly > stated the definition for covectors. >
Yes, however we can't fix that without improving the type system, as you mentioned, which is a quite pervasive task that's not on anyones agenda. So until then, the definition of jump in ufl is unambiguous and documented, although not quite up to par with the mathematical definition from the paper. Martin
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
