On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:00:38PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 08/07/10 11:49, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >On 8 July 2010 08:22, Garth N. Wells<gn...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >>On Jul 8 2010, Anders Logg wrote: > >> > >>>On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:34:39PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>> > >>>>On 7 July 2010 20:22, Garth N. Wells<gn...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>On 07/07/10 20:14, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:26:20PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Supporting CellVolume makes it possible to do: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>CG = FiniteElement("Lagrange", triangle, 2) > >>>>>>>DG = FiniteElement("DG", triangle, 0) > >>>>>>>v = TestFunction(DG) > >>>>>>>f = Coefficient(CG) > >>>>>>>vol = triangle.v > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Would it be better to call it vol or volume instead of v? Or does it > >>>>>>have to be a one-letter word? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>. . . or call it 'volume'. > >>>> > >>>>It can be whatever we want, I just followed what was already there. > >>>>Should we then rename 'd', 'n' and 'x' to 'geometric_dimension', > >>>>'facet_normal', and 'spatial_coordinate' while we're at it? > >>> > >>>I think d, n, x are fine, but v does not necessarily look like a > >>>volume to me (it looks like a test function). > >>> > >> > >>I agree - d, n and x are all commonly used, but v for volume isn't. > > > >I changed 'v' to 'volume' and fixed a few bugs along the way. > > > >On a related note, should we implement CellDiagonal too? > >We use cell.diagonal() for MeshSize in SpecialFunctions.h of DOLFIN > >and since we often use MeshSize for the 'h' coefficient in DG forms > >e.g., PoissonDG we could remove the need for this function evaluation. > >The code to compute the CellDiagonal could just be copied from > >IntervalCell, TriangleCell and TetrahedronCell of DOLFIN and dumped in > >codesnippets.py. > > > > What if we call it 'Circumradius'? > > I recall that the agreed not have have CellSize because of the > ambiguity in its definition, but circumradius is unambiguous, so I > vote to add it.
Isn't 'diameter' better? It is shorter and well-defined (2*circumradius). -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp