Announcement for physics module

[Jean-Paul Pelteret]

Dear all,

Firstly, best wishes for the New Year! I'm sorry that its taken me a while to do so, but I've finally drafted an announcement and wiki entry for the physics module. Please feel free to comment on it (preferably in the gist itself) and propose additions / amendments. I appreciate any input you may have.

Many thanks in advance,

J-P

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

On 01/01/2017 04:10 AM, Jean-Paul Pelteret wrote:
>
> Firstly, best wishes for the New Year! I'm sorry that its taken me a while to
> do so, but I've finally drafted an announcement and wiki entry

> <https://gist.github.com/jppelteret/ccb0ece1a89e6920662d8414ae0de181> for the

> physics module. Please feel free to comment on it (preferably in the gist
> itself) and propose additions / amendments. I appreciate any input you may have.

Hi Jean-Paul,
I think you've given this more thought than maybe necessary :-) But in any
case, this looks good. Just two comments:

1/ I tend to think of what should or shouldn't go into the physics module as
delineated by the question of whether it is useful to more than just one
application, whereas your description is more about whether there is
scientific consensus on what is *correct*. In my world, that would mean that
the neo-modernistic cam clay model ought to go into application codes whereas
the *tools* to implement it (such as many of the functions you implemented)
ought to go into the library.

2/ discresion -> discretion

I've generally come to see things in shades of gray, and consequently try to
avoid the word "must" by "ought" in describing requirements.

Cheers
W.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bang...@colostate.edu
www: http://www.math.colostate.edu/~bangerth/