On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 08:04, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I can't believe you guys want further screwing around with the C >> preprocessor. I want all that crap completely >> out of the system. We are very close to that. >> > > If you think we are very close to removing all functional tests from > configure (making petscconf.h contain only options set directly by the user, > not the result of any tests in configure), then you are delusional. Barry > just wants a clean way to jump from macro name to the test that defines that > macro and back. I agree that manually following the "link" is sometimes a > confusing process as evidenced by the fact that I typically use recursive > grep for it, but I would rather make the macro definition process > sufficiently well structured than to write potentially fragile paths into > the variable itself. This is about naming and links, not about "screwing > around with the C preprocessor". >
1) This is about fooling with the preprocessor, or I would not need any of these goofy names. How can you deny this? 2) For test information as well as control flow, I want to stay in Python. 3) What do you mean by "link"? 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110209/d4196be3/attachment.html>
