On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:26, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) This is about fooling with the preprocessor, or I would not need any of > these goofy names. How can you deny this? > The preprocessor doesn't care what the name of the macro is. Barry's suggestion was just a way to make it easy for a human to find out where the macro was set, but at the expense of making the names fragile. I would rather have the editor be able to navigate using more stable names. > > 2) For test information as well as control flow, I want to stay in Python. > How would you manage, say, the logic around PETSC_USE_X_FOR_DEBUGGER? Generate the appropriate snippets of code on the Python side? What advantage to you see to that? > > 3) What do you mean by "link"? > 1. From the name of a macro that may be defined in petscconf.h to the test in configure which is used to decide how to set that macro. 2. From the test in configure to a list of uses on the C side (in a less brute-force way than grep). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110209/e4dde89c/attachment.html>
