I have added PetscObjectAddOptionsHandler() for all objects and removed KSPAddOptionsChecker()
Barry On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:18 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > 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/20100702/ceb0e810/attachment.html>
