Re: [fem-fenics] interpolate

[Eugenio Gianniti]

On 19 May 2014, at 18:22, c. <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> On 19 May 2014, at 18:07, Eugenio Gianniti <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> According to this I should probably leave the interface as it is for 
>> compatibility with the Octave standard. Currently interpolate uses the 
>> Function, which in your example is object, just as “vector” of the 
>> information about the function space, then the interpolated result is 
>> returned.
>> Could it be better to modify the function in order to make it work in a 
>> really object oriented fashion, I mean saving the result of the 
>> interpolation in what we called object?
> 
> What you mean exactly by "would be better"? 
> More efficient? More intuitive? Closer to the Python interface?

What I meant is a mix of more intuitive and closer to Octave’s syntax, but the 
latter point was a misunderstanding of the previous example. Also, the former 
is probably driven by a personal bias towards OOP.

Eugenio

> 
> In the current version of Octave the standard syntax 
> for this kind of operation is of the form:
> 
> object = class_method (object, method_arguments)
> 
> If you don't like this you should work on the bleeding edge
> development version of Octave which implements "classdef"
> style OOP.
> 
> This would mean your code would be compatible 
> with Octave 4.2+ only.
> 
> c.
> 
>