On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:50:33 -0600, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> That is definitely a problem. >>> >> > I am not convinced yet that this is a problem. The dependency is only in > one specific Mat implementation that should not require pulling in the DM > library unless that specific Mat implementation is specifically used. Since > that specific Mat implementation is not used in the Mat examples it should > not require pulling in the DM library. > If it is not a practical problem, I still believe it is a conceptual problem. Matt > Barry > > > > It makes me think we need an R^N part just >>> like we have now, and then a more general part with operators on fiber >>> bundles. >>> >> >> The question is whether it is important to separate that stuff (which >> depends on both Vec and DM) from DM (which already depends on Vec). >> >> 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/20100102/b65677cf/attachment.html>
