For PETSc 4.0 we adopt an appropriate "pre-commit" source code pretty print
system; that prevents incorrectly formatted code from getting into the
repository.
Barry
On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Did we just adopt a new line formatting convention and nobody told me?
>
> ierr =
> PetscObjectGetOptionsPrefix((PetscObject)(ilink->ksp),&prefix); CHKERRQ(ierr);
> ierr = PetscObjectSetOptionsPrefix((PetscObject)(dms[i]), prefix);
> CHKERRQ(ierr);
> ierr = KSPSetDM(ilink->ksp, dms[i]);
> CHKERRQ(ierr);
> ierr = KSPSetDMActive(ilink->ksp, PETSC_FALSE);
> CHKERRQ(ierr);
> ierr =
> PetscObjectIncrementTabLevel((PetscObject)dms[i],(PetscObject)ilink->ksp,0);
> CHKERRQ(ierr);
>
> }
> else {
>
> if(jac->reset)
> SETERRQ(((PetscObject)pc)->comm,PETSC_ERR_SUP,"Cases not yet
> handled when PCReset() was used");
>
> Knowing Barry, he's going to fix this formatting the next time he runs across
> that file just to make it consistent (at the unfortunate expense of making
> "hg annotate" less useful until the tools get better about tracing backward
> through history).
>
> Is the tab level above even correct? Why would the KSP tab level be expected
> to match the DM tab level?
>
> Do we need this new set of KSP-specific functions for manipulating tab
> levels? There isn't a KSPTypeCompare(), etc. I thought the convention within
> PETSc was that user-level APIs were usually exposed as type-specific
> routines, but developer-level stuff used PetscObject directly.
>
