Timo,
Don't worry about that. I can't complain if someone else does the work no?
:)
On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 1:07:49 p.m. UTC-4 Timo Heister wrote:
> Bruno, I already have a working implementation of the extractors on my
> machine. I just didn't get the time to clean up, write tests, and
>
Bruno, I already have a working implementation of the extractors on my
machine. I just didn't get the time to clean up, write tests, and
submit the PR. Sorry. I will try to pick this up again in the next few
days.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:26 PM Wolfgang Bangerth
wrote:
>
> On 3/11/21 11:10 PM,
On 3/11/21 11:10 PM, blais...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me read the documentation a bit and I could try to come up with a PR.
Maybe this is something we could discuss? I'd be glad to help in improving DG
methods :)
Happy to discuss in whatever venue you propose!
Start by looking at the FEValuesVi
Good to know.
Let me read the documentation a bit and I could try to come up with a PR.
Maybe this is something we could discuss? I'd be glad to help in improving
DG methods :)
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 4:29:04 p.m. UTC-5 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> On 3/11/21 10:14 PM, blais...@gmail.com
On 3/11/21 10:14 PM, blais...@gmail.com wrote:
I am currently trying to solve an advection-diffusion equation at very, very
high Péclet number. I first implemented a GLS-stabilized continuous Galerkin
solution, it works well, but clearly I think a DG approach would be immensely
better here.
T
Dear all,
I hope you are well.
I am currently trying to solve an advection-diffusion equation at very,
very high Péclet number. I first implemented a GLS-stabilized continuous
Galerkin solution, it works well, but clearly I think a DG approach would
be immensely better here.
The issue is that t
