On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > 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? >
A single system, with real scoping, easy debugging, more readable code, etc. Matt > > >> >> 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). > -- 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/20110209/7bb6fe6d/attachment.html>
