-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 182
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
Fix inconsistent ufl usage in examples #3532
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Not sure if it is worth continuing to work on this. Some of the developers are of the opinion that the choice of doing
is to ensure that the weak formulation of the problem is as close to the one on paper as possible, avoiding to have to add a prefix |
Good point, but could we then switch to consistent usage of |
I guess so, unless the list of imported names gets super long. If I were you I would put this on hold until a few other developers have had the opportunity to comment. |
I think having a mixture doesn’t hurt. |
I noticed this by chance when copying the elasticity weak form 2.0 * μ * ufl.sym(grad(v)) + λ * ufl.tr(ufl.sym(grad(v))) * ufl.Identity(len(v)) and it was not clear to me why it didn't just work with an |
Here I agree it is very confusing. It dangerously suggests |
Some examples use multiple import schemes of
ufl
, this switches to a single import style per example.For example currenltly
demo_elasticity.py
contains:Other examples that share this:
demo_biharmonic.py
demo_cahn-hilliard.py
demo_hdg.py
demo_helmholtz.py
demo_lagrange_variants.py
demo_poisson_matrix_free.py
demo_poisson.py
demo_pyamg.py
demo_stokes.py