From 1ca9e96df4d8b8ebcb241e96180f9b97b785e110 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: heister Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:43:55 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] documentation patch by Oleh Krehel git-svn-id: https://svn.dealii.org/trunk@30218 0785d39b-7218-0410-832d-ea1e28bc413d --- deal.II/examples/step-16/step-16.cc | 12 ++++++------ deal.II/examples/step-17/step-17.cc | 11 ++++++----- 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/deal.II/examples/step-16/step-16.cc b/deal.II/examples/step-16/step-16.cc index fd0caadd6c..f5e657493e 100644 --- a/deal.II/examples/step-16/step-16.cc +++ b/deal.II/examples/step-16/step-16.cc @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ namespace Step16 class LaplaceProblem { public: - LaplaceProblem (const unsigned int deg); + LaplaceProblem (const unsigned int degree); void run (); private: @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ namespace Step16 const unsigned int degree; // The following four objects are the only additional member variables, - // compared to step-6. They first three represent the operators that act + // compared to step-6. The first three represent the operators that act // on individual levels of the multilevel hierarchy, rather than on the // finest mesh as do the objects above while the last object stores // information about the boundary indices on each level and information @@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ namespace Step16 // @sect4{LaplaceProblem::assemble_system} - // The following function assembles the linear system on the finesh level of + // The following function assembles the linear system on the finest level of // the mesh. It is almost exactly the same as in step-6, with the exception // that we don't eliminate hanging nodes and boundary values after // assembling, but while copying local contributions into the global @@ -472,9 +472,9 @@ namespace Step16 // The indices just identified will later be used to decide where the // assembled value has to be added into on each level. On the other hand, // we also have to impose zero boundary conditions on the external - // boundary of each level. But this the MGConstraints knows - // it. So we simply ask for them by calling get_boundary_indices - // (). The third step is to construct constraints on all those + // boundary of each level. But this the MGConstraints knows. + // So we simply ask for them by calling get_boundary_indices(). + // The third step is to construct constraints on all those // degrees of freedom: their value should be zero after each application // of the level operators. To this end, we construct ConstraintMatrix // objects for each level, and add to each of these constraints for each diff --git a/deal.II/examples/step-17/step-17.cc b/deal.II/examples/step-17/step-17.cc index 26ae4e5c0d..0b9499c848 100644 --- a/deal.II/examples/step-17/step-17.cc +++ b/deal.II/examples/step-17/step-17.cc @@ -245,10 +245,11 @@ namespace Step17 // communicator object that only links a subset of all processes), and call // the Utilities helper functions to determine the number of processes and // where the present one fits into this picture. In addition, we make sure - // that output is only generated by the (globally) first process. As, - // this_mpi_process is determined after creation of pcout, we cannot set the - // condition through the constructor, i.e. by pcout(std::cout, - // this_mpi_process==0), but set the condition separately. + // that output is only generated by the (globally) first process. As + // this_mpi_process is determined after creation of pcout, we + // cannot set the condition through the constructor, i.e. by + // pcout(std::cout, this_mpi_process==0), but set the + // condition separately. template ElasticProblem::ElasticProblem () : @@ -537,7 +538,7 @@ namespace Step17 // The last argument to the call just performed allows for some // optimizations. It controls whether we should also delete the column // corresponding to a boundary node, or keep it (and passing - // true as above means: yes, do eliminate the column). If we + // true means: yes, do eliminate the column). If we // do, then the resulting matrix will be symmetric again if it was before; // if we don't, then it won't. The solution of the resulting system should // be the same, though. The only reason why we may want to make the system -- 2.39.5