Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected]> writes: >> 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.
Understood. Personally, I prefer explicitness to overloading so would prefer functions with different names for these things. Then, if the type system is improved later, all old correct code will continue to work and incorrect code can be detected. I was just being pedantic that the current behavior (applied to contravariant vectors) is not the intended meaning in the paper, so the rationale is not so much that the current behavior is from the paper as that UFL does not distinguish vectors from covectors. > 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.
pgpUbEIMtjHX4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
