Re: [Patch] fem-fenics patches

[c.]

On 5 Mar 2014, at 13:07, Daniel Kraft <address@hidden> wrote:

> But I have to admit that I still don't understand the point why the
> second form should not be used.  In fact, isn't "that most functions
> should work as expected when a scalar is substituted by a vector or a
> vector by a matrix" precisely an argument *in favour* of the second form?
> 
> With the first one, it is not possible to substitute x, y or z with
> matrices or column vectors.

no, that's my point.

I want to make this possible while maintaining the first form
so if it it works to specify

 feval (func, P)

where P is a single point, I'd like

 feval (punc, P)

where P is a list of points to work as well.


>  The second form is not only consistent with
> feval from the rest of Octave (and other functions with multiple
> arguments like atan2), but also supports arbitrary shapes of its arguments.

why not? 

I expect

   feval (@sin, pi/2)

to work the same as

   feval (@sin, linspace (0, 2*pi, 100))

even though I'm passing a list of points rather than one single point.
note that multiple points are specified as one single argument to the function 
"sin".

so I expect 

  feval (func, [0; 1])

to work the same as

  feval (func, [0, 0; 0, 1])

why is that so strange?

c.