Subject: [UFC-dev] Proofread of ufc manual

From: Marie Rognes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:01:50 -0200

I figured that a proofread of the ufc manual from someone 
less-than-average familiar with the setup would be fruitful. An updated 
version can be found at

    [email-masked]/?meg/hg/ufc 

A more linguistic question: How standard is 'sub element' vs 
'sub-element' or 'subelement'. (Ref 'sub section' vs 'sub-section' vs 
'subsection') You have been very consistent, so I guess you have thought 
about this.

I don't quite understand section 3.6.9 in particular not the last line. 
Should dof_values be vertex_values there?

In addition, I cannot make full sense of the following sentence from 3.7.2:

    "This function returns true if the \texttt{dof\_map} requires mesh
    entities of topological dimension \texttt{d} to be filled in
    \texttt{ufc::cell} arguments."

--
Marie

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:41:47 +0200

Marie Rognes wrote:
>     [email-masked]/˝meg/hg/ufc 
> 
> 

I would use subelement. "sub element" is incorrect.

Garth

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UFC-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ufc-dev

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:04:55 +0200

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:01:50AM -0200, Marie Rognes wrote:
> 
> I figured that a proofread of the ufc manual from someone less-than-average
> familiar with the setup would be fruitful. An updated version can be found at
> 

Excellent!

> A more linguistic question: How standard is 'sub element' vs 'sub-element' or
> 'subelement'. (Ref 'sub section' vs 'sub-section' vs 'subsection') You have
> been very consistent, so I guess you have thought about this.

Consistent, but apparently incorrect. :-) I am generally confused with
words like "subelement", "time step" (or "timestep"?) etc...

> I don't quite understand section 3.6.9 in particular not the last line. Should
> dof_values be vertex_values there?

Yes, it should be vertex_values in the last sentence. Does it make
sense then?

>     \texttt{ufc::cell} arguments."

I made an attempt to explain this better. Does it make sense now?

/Anders

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:08:45 +0200

> I would use subelement. "sub element" is incorrect.

I found these occurences "sub foo" in the manual:

  sub domain
  sub element
  sub array
  sub dof map
  sub simplex

Should all these be changed to "subfoo"?

/Anders

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:21:30 +0200

> Should all these be changed to "subfoo"?

"sub" is a prefix so it should generally being connected, unless by 
connecting it the meaning or the pronunciation is changed (or if it just 
looks silly), in which case a hyphen should be used. For "sub dof map", 
I would use "sub-dofmap" since "dofmap" is not a word. The rules for 
when to connect and when to use a hyphen are not concrete, but more a 
question of style. What is wrong is having a space after "sub".

Garth

---

From: Marie Rognes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:19:45 -0200

> Yes, it should be vertex_values in the last sentence. Does it make
Yes :)
> I made an attempt to explain this better. Does it make sense now?

Well, I do understand what the function is supposed to do and its 
implications - and the additional explanation is clarifying. But, is 
there a "by/for/into" missing between "filled in" and "ufc::cell 
arguments" maybe?  

--
Marie

---

From: "Martin Sandve Alnæs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:59:21 +0200

> question of style. What is wrong is having a space after "sub".

I changed these to subfoo and sub-dofmap, and "dof map" to dofmap, but
kept "dof mapping". Is this ok? Should we change the classname dof_map
to dofmap?

martin

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:21:09 +0200

> kept "dof mapping". Is this ok? Should we change the classname dof_map

I think we should keep the class name as it is.

/Anders

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:22:42 +0200

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:19:45AM -0200, Marie Rognes wrote:
> Well, I do understand what the function is supposed to do and its implications
> - and the additional explanation is clarifying. But, is there a "by/for/into"
> missing between "filled in" and "ufc::cell arguments" maybe?  

I made an attempt at fixing this.

/Anders