- changed status to resolved
Add FENICS_EPS
We have DOLFIN_EPS
. In line with from fenics import *
, we should add an alias FENICS_EPS
.
Comments (9)
-
reporter -
Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Unnecessarily adding two ways to do one thing.
-
reporter It's an alias in the same way as we have
from fenics/dolfin import *
. I don't foresee adding more of these (possiblyfenics_parameters.xml
). Most of our users are not aware of DOLFIN and other components, they only know FEniCS. Plus it's a tiny amount of code duplication of code that has remained static for years. -
I don't like the
fenics
alias either. If a user doesn't know what they're using they should find out. Having two names for the same package is just confusing. -
reporter I'm of the opposite opinion. We've emphasized the FEniCS branding for many years. 99% (or some other large fraction) of our users can't name and don't care about any of the components that make up FEniCS, and they shouldn't have to.
-
It depends on which segment of the market you value most.
-
Demos have traditional
from dolfin import *
. Others teach new users tofrom fenics import *
. This is exactly what creates confusion. Either the library is DOLFIN or FEniCS. We should pick one and follow it consistently. -
reporter I've been teaching numerous courses and tutorials that use FEniCS and I can tell you what is most confusing is to ask users to
import dolfin
. No one knows whatdolfin
is. Havingfenics
as an alias for most users to use is not confusing. We also importufl.*
into thefenics/dolfin
namespace. We could be very strict and silly and import neither but it would make a crappy user experience. -
reporter The really logical thing would be to not import
ufl.*
intodolfin
but instead create a new module namedfenics
which importsufl.*
,dolfin.*
and, possibly,mshr.*
. What we have now essentially does this without the need for creating a separate top-level repository for thefenics
module. - Log in to comment
Fix issue
#781: Add FENICS_EPS→ <<cset 7a345ad039b1>>