Anders Logg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:50:49AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote:
>> On Saturday 28 November 2009 00:45:39 Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>> Johan Hake wrote:
On Friday 27 November 2009 14:44:12 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Johan Hake wrote:
>> On Friday 27 November 2009 11:53:00 G
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:50:49AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 00:45:39 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Johan Hake wrote:
> > > On Friday 27 November 2009 14:44:12 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> Johan Hake wrote:
> > >>> On Friday 27 November 2009 11:53:00 Garth N. Wells wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 00:45:39 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Friday 27 November 2009 14:44:12 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >> Johan Hake wrote:
> >>> On Friday 27 November 2009 11:53:00 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Friday 27 November 2009 03:02:08 A
Johan Hake wrote:
> On Friday 27 November 2009 14:44:12 Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> Johan Hake wrote:
>>> On Friday 27 November 2009 11:53:00 Garth N. Wells wrote:
Johan Hake wrote:
> On Friday 27 November 2009 03:02:08 Anders Logg wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:41:03AM +, Gar
On Friday 27 November 2009 14:44:12 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Friday 27 November 2009 11:53:00 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >> Johan Hake wrote:
> >>> On Friday 27 November 2009 03:02:08 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:41:03AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
Johan Hake wrote:
> On Friday 27 November 2009 11:53:00 Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> Johan Hake wrote:
>>> On Friday 27 November 2009 03:02:08 Anders Logg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:41:03AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Anders Logg wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:37:08AM +00
On Friday 27 November 2009 11:53:00 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Friday 27 November 2009 03:02:08 Anders Logg wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:41:03AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>> Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:37:08AM +, Garth N. Wells wrot
Johan Hake wrote:
> On Friday 27 November 2009 03:02:08 Anders Logg wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:41:03AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>> Anders Logg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:37:08AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Is it still possible with the new Expression syntax to do
On Friday 27 November 2009 03:02:08 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:41:03AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Anders Logg wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:37:08AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> Is it still possible with the new Expression syntax to do something
> > >> lik
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:41:03AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:37:08AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >> Is it still possible with the new Expression syntax to do something like:
> >>
> >> f2, f3 = Expressions("sin(3.0*x[0])*sin(3.0*x[1])*si
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:37:08AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> Is it still possible with the new Expression syntax to do something like:
>>
>> f2, f3 = Expressions("sin(3.0*x[0])*sin(3.0*x[1])*sin(3.0*x[2])",
>> "1.0 + 3.0*x[0] + 4.0*x[1] + 0.5*x[2]
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:37:08AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Is it still possible with the new Expression syntax to do something like:
>
> f2, f3 = Expressions("sin(3.0*x[0])*sin(3.0*x[1])*sin(3.0*x[2])",
> "1.0 + 3.0*x[0] + 4.0*x[1] + 0.5*x[2]", V=V)
>
> The above is us
Is it still possible with the new Expression syntax to do something like:
f2, f3 = Expressions("sin(3.0*x[0])*sin(3.0*x[1])*sin(3.0*x[2])",
"1.0 + 3.0*x[0] + 4.0*x[1] + 0.5*x[2]", V=V)
The above is used in the unit tests. Or to keep things simple should we
remove this kind
13 matches
Mail list logo