On 26 March 2010 14:23, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Kristian Oelgaard
wrote:
On 26 March 2010 13:36, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
Could you have ffc print out a warning so dumb users like me will
remember this change when their code breaks?
That might be a good i
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Kristian Oelgaard
wrote:
>
>
> On 26 March 2010 13:36, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
>>
>> Could you have ffc print out a warning so dumb users like me will
>> remember this change when their code breaks?
>
> That might be a good idea, would it be enough to put in the __
On 26 March 2010 13:36, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
Could you have ffc print out a warning so dumb users like me will
remember this change when their code breaks?
That might be a good idea, would it be enough to put in the __add__ operator in
UFL for FiniteElements?
We didn't use __mul__ before
Could you have ffc print out a warning so dumb users like me will
remember this change when their code breaks?
-- Andy
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Marie Rognes wrote:
> Anders Logg wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:43:41PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Marie Rognes wrote:
>>>
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:43:41PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:43:41PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
> Marie Rognes wrote:
> >Anders Logg wrote:
> >>On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
> >>>Anders Logg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristia
Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
> Anders Logg wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>>On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
> After Marie's latest addition of enriched spac
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
> >>with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current n
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the o
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
function space" a
In favor.
--
Marie
> After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
> with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
> mixed spaces is not optimal.
>
> Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
> function space" as a direct sum,
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
function space" as a direct sum,
X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus
15 matches
Mail list logo