On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:56, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > >> We used to have everything in the preprocessor, and we could happily edit >> that and never have to think >> about Python at all. We abandoned that approach because it was too >> complicated, prone to break, and >> we spent all of our petsc-maint time on it. >> > > I don't know what examples you are referring to, I started with PETSc in > 2004. >
Everything before configure was 'bmake' which was pure preprocessor. > I don't see a lot of logic currently being done on the Python side and used > from C, petscconf.h does not have logic in it. No C source files or function > What does this sentence mean? If petscconf.h has no logic, then isn't all the logic on the Python side? Isn't all that logic used from C? > bodies are currently generated by Python. It sounds like you want to > generated imperative code in Python and call that from C. I think that would > add > We can currently control the build to do selective builds, just as we do with #defines right now. I think that removing that code from the tree and building everything would actually be simpler. Matt > complexity. > -- 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/20110209/02a0ebc1/attachment.html>
