# [Gmsh] Notation Differences Between gmsh and getdp

**Christophe Geuzaine**
Christophe.Geuzaine at ulg.ac.be

*Wed Sep 5 09:46:05 CEST 2001*

Alan Bromborsky wrote:
>*
*>* It it advantageous to be able to keep the dimensions associated with a
*>* particular problem geometry in gmsh and getdp in a single file in which
*>* critical system dimensions can be calculated from a few parameters
*>* (usually lengths associated with components such as permanent magnets,
*>* cores, coils, etc.). The problem is that the notation for built in
*>* fuctions is not the same in gmsh and getdp. For example in gmsh we have
*>* Sqrt(x) and in getdp Sqrt[x] so that the same include file cannot be
*>* used in both programs. Note that used for such include files in getdp
*>* are to define the inner and outer radii of a terminating boundry shell
*>* or to calculate coil areas required for the calculation of inductance
*>* and other associated postoperation outputs. Is there away around this
*>* inconsistentcy or do I have to write a preprocessor that will remove all
*>* function references (evaluate the functions) from my include file(s)?
*>*
*
This is a good idea. I'll add an alternative built-in function syntax in
the next version of gmsh to allow the use of functions with brackets.
Christophe
--
Christophe Geuzaine
Tel: 32 (0) 4 366 37 10 http://geuz.org
Fax: 32 (0) 4 366 29 10 mailto:Christophe.Geuzaine at ulg.ac.be