Barry, I like the the suggestion to change PetscLogEvent* to PetscEvent*, but to be consistent with naming then I think we would also need to change PetscLogStage* to PetscStage*, etc.
Just my 0.5 cents. --Richard Barry Smith wrote: > > On May 5, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> Actually, I would argue that these methods do not actually act on >> PetscEvent >> at all (which is just an integer), but rather on a PetscLog. That is >> why I named >> them that way. > > The namage has to be consistent with any normal Joe's thinking about > the usage, > not based on some implementation issue that only you know about. Names > are for > users, not for the guru developers. Guru developers could name their > variables and > functions a1 to a2303 and have no problem maintaining the code. > > I think the macro names should be changed to PetscEventBegin.... not > PetscLogEventBegin.... based on the policy in PETSc that "methods" on > "objects" > start with the name of the objects: e.g. MatMult(Mat,....) The user > shouldn't know > or care that PetscEvent is an int and not a PetscEvent or PetscLogEvent > object. > > Barry > > We could instead change PetscEvent to PetscLogEvent but I think PetscEvent > is clear enough without the Log in it. > > >> >> >> Matt >> >> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> Doesn't seem right. >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- Richard Tran Mills, Ph.D. | E-mail: rmills at climate.ornl.gov Computational Scientist | Phone: (865) 241-3198 Computational Earth Sciences Group | Fax: (865) 574-0405 Oak Ridge National Laboratory | http://climate.ornl.gov/~rmills
