From ab7f86479a8d8d75e2fbe371a9d48db5f3a1093e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: bangerth Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 04:28:24 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Leave a comment that this case is really treated for good. git-svn-id: https://svn.dealii.org/trunk@13696 0785d39b-7218-0410-832d-ea1e28bc413d --- deal.II/deal.II/source/dofs/dof_tools.cc | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/deal.II/deal.II/source/dofs/dof_tools.cc b/deal.II/deal.II/source/dofs/dof_tools.cc index 9812622a30..ab2ee0de45 100644 --- a/deal.II/deal.II/source/dofs/dof_tools.cc +++ b/deal.II/deal.II/source/dofs/dof_tools.cc @@ -2209,17 +2209,60 @@ namespace internal ->get_dof_indices (dofs_on_children, subface_fe_index); - // Now create the element - // constraint for this subface. - -//TODO: Think about this a bit more: neighbor_child is computed correctly, -//taking into account face_orientation. however, we don't care about this -//here, when we ask for subface_interpolation on subface c. do we have to -//translate things here? -// -//btw, this is checked in the deal.II/project_*_03 tests, that verify that the -//approximation order of finite elements on meshes with constraints and at -//least one face_orientation==false is as expected + // Now create the + // element constraint + // for this subface. + // + // As a side remark, + // one may wonder the + // following: + // neighbor_child is + // clearly computed + // correctly, + // i.e. taking into + // account + // face_orientation + // (just look at the + // implementation of + // that + // function). however, + // we don't care about + // this here, when we + // ask for + // subface_interpolation + // on subface c. the + // question rather is: + // do we have to + // translate 'c' here + // as well? + // + // the answer is in + // fact 'no'. if one + // does that, results + // are wrong: + // constraints are + // added twice for the + // same pair of nodes + // but with differing + // weights. in + // addition, one can + // look at the + // deal.II/project_*_03 + // tests that look at + // exactly this case: + // there, we have a + // mesh with at least + // one + // face_orientation==false + // and hanging nodes, + // and the results of + // those tests show + // that the result of + // projection verifies + // the approximation + // properties of a + // finite element onto + // that mesh face_constraints.reinit (n_dofs_on_mother, n_dofs_on_children); cell->get_fe() -- 2.39.5