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
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 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
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 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 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 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:
The regression testing of Projection.ufl is failing for me (and has been
so for a while).
Could it be that the references have not been updated for this form?
The first part of the diff is as follows:
-// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.2
-// and was automaticall
Works fine here, but I get:
Missing reference for Mini.out
Kristian
On 22 March 2010 13:49, Marie Rognes wrote:
The regression testing of Projection.ufl is failing for me (and has been so
for a while).
Could it be that the references have not been updated for this form?
The first part of th
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
Works fine here,
Ah, pulled fresh branch -- and now I see.
Projection.ufl has been removed
from the demos directory, but the reference is still
hovering around.
but I get:
Missing reference for Mini.out
Yes, will add once I've checked that the generated
code gives
On 22 March 2010 15:31, Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
Works fine here,
Ah, pulled fresh branch -- and now I see.
Projection.ufl has been removed
from the demos directory, but the reference is still
hovering around.
Aha, that explains a lot.
but I get:
Missing reference
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
