PetscObjectAddOptionsHandler(PetscObject, PetscErrorCode (*)(PetscObject,void*),void *ctx) ?
Barry On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > 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/20100624/cbc4ae2f/attachment.html>
