Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Unifying the dw_* with dw_*_r was trivial in terms of lines of code changed, but
finding the right places was not so obvious. Anyway, all *_r terms are now
gone...
The remaining terms have not been touched. Now the next step (d_* terms) would
mean
more editing. Is it worth right now?
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 4 Jul 2008 at 10:01
I have found an easy way to unify all terms sharing the integral forms. For
example
dw_grad, dw_div, d_grad, d_div could be handled all by a single term. Now I am
coding
a proof-of-concept.
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 18 Sep 2008 at 10:49
Excellent!
Original comment by ondrej.c...@gmail.com
on 18 Sep 2008 at 11:46
It's in. For a sample term with this functionality see dw_piezo_coupling and
its use
in input/piezo.py.
Now I will (gradually) remove unnecessary terms.
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 23 Sep 2008 at 5:44
Changeset http://hg.sympy.org/sfepy/rev/312b8baadda2 allows to unify also dw_,
d_,
de_, dq_, ... forms of one term. The hyperelastic terms provide the sample
implementation.
I will close this issue after relevant terms are unified.
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 3 Oct 2008 at 6:00
Now, dw_stokes implements what was before in dw_grad, dw_div, d_div. See
input/navier_stokes.py file for an example.
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 13 Oct 2008 at 4:50
Together with Issue 59, dw_stokes, dw_biot, and dw_biot_th encompass all former
Biot-
and Stokes-like terms (changeset http://hg.sympy.org/sfepy/rev/e2b43f0e4a76),
let's
close this.
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 21 Oct 2008 at 8:28
Migrated to http://github.com/sfepy/sfepy/issues/51
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 30 Jan 2012 at 10:24
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
robert.c...@gmail.com
on 3 Jul 2008 at 11:39