Refactor shapes#1
Conversation
alexfikl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 <alexfikl@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alex Fikl <alexfikl@gmail.com>
|
@inducer Should I merge this back into inducer#16 now? |
|
Not yet. There's another big chunk coming. |
alexfikl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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. |
alexfikl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.