-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactor shapes #1
Refactor shapes #1
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is definitely more of a refactor that I would have been comfortable doing! It looks really nice!
It occurred to me that it still equates "shape + order = polynomial space", which is not totally true. I'm thinking of introducing a separate object for the polynomial space. Is that crazy? (Not a big change, just |
Isn't that mostly what the discretization |
In a way, sure... but they're about multiple elements, not just the reference element. What worries me more is that we're currently answering the question "give me a basis for tetrahedra", which is nonsense. "Give me a basis for P^k" makes incrementally more sense. The motivating examples where things break down that I think about are pyramids and inhomogeneous tensor products. |
Yes, I agree it's a bit clunky. Especially as inducer#15 would already introduce a non-tensor product set for squares. It makes sense to add something like a polynomial space to express these things. |
Co-authored-by: Alex Fikl <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Alex Fikl <[email protected]>
@inducer Should I merge this back into inducer#16 now? |
Not yet. There's another big chunk coming. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a few more comments. I can fix these after we merge back into inducer#16.
The "big chunk of stuff" is now in, mostly consisting of introducing a notion of polynomial spaces. Take a look. Good to merge back once the checks on inducer/meshmode#95 pass. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks good to me! inducer/meshmode#95 also seems to have passed too!
I'll merge this back into inducer#16 and we can nitpick it more there!
This pushes inducer#16 towards relying even more heavily on the shapes stuff.