On Thu, 16 May 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > > > I don't think this makes sense. A certain pair of library and include > > makes sense. Decoupling these invites all sorts of mismatches which > > would be hard to track down. I do not see what is wrong with the > > strategy above? > > It causes confusing error conditions and in almost all cases, the same > includes are used for all library guesses. >
Even for just the libraries I think we needed: try (liba) if all true (test1,test2,test3) then accept (liba) else try (libb) if all true (test1,test2,test3) then accept (libb) hence the current code. Perhaps we need multiple semantics for different situations. Satish
