On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > Why would you attach an option instead of having an equiv API call? Strings > are ALWAYS a bad interface.
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Currently we can attach named PetscObjects to a given object. All I was suggested that name strings (one can think of them as "properties") be attachable too, but that might be introducing too much additional complexity. Dmitry. > ??Matt > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> On a somewhat related note: would it make sense to have the functionality >> to >> attach options or just character strings to PetscObjects? >> We have ways of attaching reals, ints and arrays >> thereof to objects, but not character strings or options (named strings). >> I would find it convenient in various situations. >> It would also mirror the way we are able to compose named functions or >> PetscObjects >> with a given PetscObject. >> >> Dmitry. >> >> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> > >> > ?I think this is a fine idea and have no problem with someone >> > implementing >> > it. >> > >> > ? Barry >> > >> > On Mar 21, 2010, at 4:04 AM, Jed Brown wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> As a separate issue, when talking about bigger multiphysics problems, I >> >> would really like namespaced options. ?This could be as quick-and-dirty >> >> as >> >> >> >> ?-prefix_push something_ -other -options -prefix_pop >> >> >> >> which would mean >> >> >> >> ?-something_other -something_options >> >> >> >> In particular, this would have to work with >> >> >> >> ?-prefix_push fieldsplit_physics1_ -options_file physics1-solver >> >> -prefix_pop >> >> >> >> where everything in 'physics1-solver' would be under this prefix. >> >> Alternatively (or additionally), a parser for yaml options would allow >> >> this composition. >> >> >> >> Jed >> > >> > > > > > -- > 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 >
