On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Roy Stogner <email@example.com> wrote:
I personally would be thrilled if we could generalize to non-Lagrange
On Wed, 30 May 2012, John Peterson wrote:
It might be possible to have a more complete separation between the
mapping aspects of the FE class and the approximation space aspects,
i.e. have an "FEMap" base class and corresponding hierarchy?
maps. I haven't drunk the NURBS-approximation-spaces Flavor-Aid yet,
but supporting NURBS geometric mappings would be fantastic.
I think it's a red herring from the vector valued elements questions,
however. The (Lagrange-or-NURBs-or-high_p-etc) option on mappings
from reference to physical space ought to be completely independent of
the (covariant-or-contravariant-or-piola) option for the subsequently
induced mappings from reference to physical vectors (or tensors).
But there's no reason to worry about that potential design change
while you are already immersed in creating FEAbstract... maybe it
could be looked at again later if it seems useful.