On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > PetscObjectAddOptionsHandler(PetscObject, PetscErrorCode > (*)(PetscObject,void*),void *ctx) ? > Better. Matt 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 > > > -- 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/20100625/0cf25e66/attachment.html>
