I am for the uniform PetscObjectAddOptionsChecker(). Should it really be called Checker? Sounds like validation. I think there is some value in treating SetFromOptions as a generic facility that can be extended. This is "aspect oriented programming" :)
Matt On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > KSPAddOptionsChecker() is never used in PETSc. Is it needed? Can it be > removed? > > Or should we have a PetscObjectAddOptionsChecker() instead, thus > expanding this (unneeded capability) to all PETSc objects/solvers? > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100625/3e14e79c/attachment.html>
