On Nov 29, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 23:21, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Crap. That means that the output from this newly modifed function is not what > is needed by the creation routine. In fact there exists > DMDASetOwnershipRanges(). What are we going to do with that? Change the > meaning of DMDASetOwnershipRanges() arguments (and hence also the meaning of > the final optional arguments to the DMDACreate3d() and 2d)? For uniformaty > we need to change those also. But the changed form is more cumbersome and > less natural for users, is it not? Or is it ok to change all of them? We > don't have a concept of setting global ownership values for Vec and Mat > (cause the meaning is a little different). Maybe a name change is in order? > > That was my original thought, either change the meaning of all these things > or change the name.
Then why didn't you say that? Your original email didn't make clear that lots of PETSc code needed to be changed (to perhaps a more cumbersome model). When I thought basically it was only user code that needed much change I was perfectly happy to make them change it, but now that it involves PETSc code I'm not so sure :-) BUT given my hatred of new concepts and the fact that it basically fits the VecGetOwnershipRanges() concept I still think the correct fix is to change all the PETSc code but leave the same names. Never introduce a new concept to save changing code, only introduce a new concept when it is really needed and here it is not really needed! Barry > > Jed
