On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Ataollah Mesgarnejad wrote: > >> On Jan 11, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: >> >>> equation_systems_io.C, line 324. If you tell read() to read the >>> header, then it assumes that it's responsible for initializing >>> everything too. > >> So what would happen if EquationSystems::read() does not do the init >> until later when I add the matrices? > > If you call read with READ_HEADER set, and it doesn't do init(), then > everybody else's code, which has been assuming the contrary, starts > breaking. > > If you call read without READ_HEADER set, then it won't do init(), you > should be able to do init() yourself after matrices are added, and > everything ought to work just the way you want. > >> In other words what is the purpose of calling init inside >> EquationSystems::read() > > Probably just to make the typical users' code a little terser and more > fail-safe. That's why I'd have designed it that way, anyway, but I > think it was Ben or John's API originally and they may have other > considerations too. > >> and is it really necessary as long as it's done later on at some >> point before we start solution process? > > Yes, if only for backwards compatibility. > > What we really ought to do in the long run is enable addition of new > matrices after init() - but for your purposes omitting READ_HEADER and > doing the initialization yourself ought to work already.
Then thats what I'll do. Thanks Ata ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Mar 27 - Feb 2 Save $400 by Jan. 27 Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev2 _______________________________________________ Libmesh-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users
