On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:35:06 -0500, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > > > This brings up a "why the heck are we writing PETSc in C anyways" > question > > > > We have > > > > KSPSetOptionsPrefix(), PC, SNES etc. AND > PetscObjectSetOptionsPrefix() all do the same thing > > > > KSPSetFromOptions(), Vec, Mat, PC etc but NO > PetscObjectSetFromOptions() > > > > PetscObjectSetName() but NO KSPSetName() etc > > > > If we have a XXXSetOptionsPrefix() for each separate class then why > not a XXXAddOptionsHandler() for each separate class? Or should we remove > all the XXXSetOptionsPrefix() but if we remove all of them why not remove > all the XXXSetFromOptions() and just always call a > PetscObjectSetFromOptions() > > XXXSetFromOptions is a "beginner" level function, I don't like the > (PetscObject) cast in this context. Also, the manual page for the >
No cast needed in straight C :) > specific version still has relevant information in a reasonable location > This is a reasonable objection. > so I wouldn't be too eager to remove it in favor of always calling > PetscObjectSetFromOptions. However, I still think its nice from the code reuse perspective, and these are common functions to all objects. Matt > > Jed > -- 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/20100625/4fe6843d/attachment.html>
