On 09/25/2016 11:31 PM, Jean-Paul Pelteret wrote:
Hi Benjamin,
I'm afraid that I don't have any knowledge of the save/load functionality in
deal.II, but maybe someone who has experience with this part of the code (one
of the ASPECT users, perhaps?) may be willing to comment on this. Just to
clarify though - this is not a bug per se, but more a matter of efficiency.
Before loading the DoFHandler (thereby, presumably, defining a DoF numbering),
there's no way to register an FE with it except by the initialize or
distribute_dof calls, both of which actually do the job of distributing DoFs.
Is my interpretation correct?
Yes, that is correct. It is true that that incurs unnecessary work. I don't
think anyone found that to be too much work in practice to bother. I agree
that it is conceptually unpleasant.
(The reason why it will be hard to change this behavior internally is that in
the DoFHandler class, we always assume that "having a FE set" and "DoFs have
been distributed" are equivalent. This invariant would break if one were to
add a function that only attaches an FE object without distributing DoFs.
If you think the unnecessary work is too much, you can always create a
triangulation with a single cell, attach the DoF handler, distributed DoFs,
and then clear/recreate the triangulation with more useful content.)
Best
W.
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:24:06 AM UTC+2, Benjamin Brands wrote:
Dear deal.ii Users,
I have a question regarding the dof_handler.load () function.
Before calling the load function for a dof_handler with assigned
triangulation I have to call the function distribute_dofs with the FE
object as argument.
By doing this DoF distribution data is created just to be overridden by
the subsequent call of dof_handler.load (archive).
I see that one has to call either distribute_dofs (with FE object as
argument) or alternatively initialize (with triangulation and FE object as
arguments) to implicitly store a pointer to the FE object, but it also
causes (in my opinion) superfluous work.
I wonder whether there is an alternative approach to the described one?
Best regards
Benjamin
--
The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/
For mailing list/forum options, see
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"deal.II User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: [email protected]
www: http://www.math.colostate.edu/~bangerth/
--
The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/
For mailing list/forum options, see
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
