On Feb 14, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > Do we have a replacement for this?
Nope. > I was using it, but it seems to be broken > and now my code spits out annoying error messages to the screen. Handle the "exception" with "regular" code that does not call the SETERRQ() but instead "handles the problem" itself. 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
