|Subject:||Re: fem-fenics questions|
|Date:||Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:02:51 +0000|
On 2014-03-04 09:59, Marco Vassallo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Daniel Kraft <address@hidden
> Looking at , it seems that they have the same syntax as you proposed.We can support both versions with "feval", since we can decide depending
> I. e., feval(func, [x, y]) or feval(func, [x, y, z]).
> My suggestion is still the following, which I find more natural:
> * Allow feval(func, [coordinates]) as before for compatibility with the
> Python version and the old version in fem-fenics.
> * Implement feval(func, x, y) and feval(func, x, y, z), which is in my
> opinion more natural.
> * In the new version, allow x, y and z to be vectors or matrices so that
> one can evaluate the function coordinate-wise for a bunch of points
> at once.
> Please let me know what you think about this proposal -- if it is ok,
> I'll work on a patch.
> The main goal for fem-fenics in the next months is to be integrated in
> and thus in my opinion it is important to have a syntax as close as
> possible to it.
> On the other side, feval() is also a function in Octave, where the syntax is
> [y1, y2, ...] = feval(fname, x1, ..., xn)
> as you proposed. I think that having the two different functions would
> be great, so that
> both FEniCS and Octave users have something close to what they are used to.
on the number of arguments (2 arguments -> 2nd one is array und use
"Python" convention, 3 or 4 arguments -> use "Octave" convention). Is
that what you mean by "two different functions"? Or do you really
suggest to use different names for them?
If the former, I agree and can implement that.
OpenPGP: 901C 5216 0537 1D2A F071 5A0E 4D94 6EED 04F7 CF52
Namecoin: id/domob -> https://nameid.org/?name=domob
To go: Mon-Pri
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|