On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 23:34, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> 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). > Apologies for not enumerating all the code that would need to be revisited. > 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 :-) > Sean, that's your cue. 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! > Okay, but it will be a while before I can get to it. Jed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20101129/ac0c4acc/attachment.html>
