On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 19:53, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Worse comes to worse I put it back (but better next time :-). > Apparently this can done purely with headers (no need to touch all the source files) and (uglier in my opinion, but still possible) with a pragma to push and pop the visibility state (C99 at least has _Pragma, it's dirtier to need #pragma (of course wrapped based on a configure test)). This makes it a much simpler issue to "put back, but better" if needed. > Actually I think handling these "things" with CPP is not the way to go, in > fact, I'd like to see, if possible, almost no use of CPP in PETSc source. > Reason: PETSc source code currently is the combination of two relatively > simple but very different, languages CPP and C. Doing source to source > manipulations on this beast is a nightmare because one cannot even parse CPP > plus C. If we eliminate the CPP then it becomes only C which we parse and > manipulate relatively easily, this opens up enormous opportunities for a > whole new approach to code development we do not have currently and cannot > have with a CPP plus C code base. Of course, I could be totally on the wrong > track but I won't know without investigation. > Clang/LLVM can parse the C with everything in it, then give you the AST or whatever intermediate form you like. Honestly I am sick of having this big code base where making changes means > editing flat files and manually changing source code, I thinking that model > really needs to change. I don't really know how to change the model but I > really want to see if change and if that involves going down some wrong > roads that is ok with me, better than not trying things. > Sounds like you should switch to Smalltalk. Jed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20101206/dd3893f7/attachment.html>
