We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Pointed out by @alarshi: This function doesn't make much sense:
template <int dim> double LatentHeatMelt<dim>:: thermal_expansion_coefficient (const double temperature, const double pressure, const std::vector<double> &composition, const Point<dim> &position) const { return thermal_alpha; const double melt_frac = melt_fraction(temperature, pressure, composition, position); return thermal_alpha * (1-melt_frac) + melt_thermal_alpha * melt_frac; }
The git log information is as follows:
b434d073 source/material_model/latent_heat_melt.cc (Juliane Dannberg 2014-06-19 18:40:51 +0200 143) { 924f6d13 source/material_model/latent_heat_melt.cc (Rene Gassmoeller 2016-11-22 10:01:33 -0700 144) return thermal_alpha; b434d073 source/material_model/latent_heat_melt.cc (Juliane Dannberg 2014-06-19 18:40:51 +0200 145) b434d073 source/material_model/latent_heat_melt.cc (Juliane Dannberg 2014-06-19 18:40:51 +0200 146) const double melt_frac = melt_fraction(temperature, pressure, composition, position); b434d073 source/material_model/latent_heat_melt.cc (Juliane Dannberg 2014-06-19 18:40:51 +0200 147) return thermal_alpha * (1-melt_frac) + melt_thermal_alpha * melt_frac; b434d073 source/material_model/latent_heat_melt.cc (Juliane Dannberg 2014-06-19 18:40:51 +0200 148) }
@jdannberg , @gassmoeller -- any insight into the reasoning why the first return was added?
return
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This was fixed by #1706.
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
Pointed out by @alarshi: This function doesn't make much sense:
The git log information is as follows:
@jdannberg , @gassmoeller -- any insight into the reasoning why the first
return
was added?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: