On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/2a4f352daf49 > > > > What is going on here, and why can't it be done more succintly? > > Hell its GPUs, what do you expect? > > What particularly part do you feel is overly complex and could be more > succintly? This checkin of fixes is larger than the entire prior implementation. Why, what is better? There are a ton of new functions with obscure names (unless Some has a meaning which escapes me). There seem to be a huge number of cases treated in enormous functions rather than factoring them out. Matt > > Barry > > > > > > Matt > > > > -- > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their > experiments lead. > > -- Norbert Wiener > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120120/3c26599f/attachment.html>
