On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>wrote: > >> You can, but the setter routines interpret NULL as "ignore", i.e. >>> >>> if (func) ctx->func = func; >>> >> >> Does this make sense to anyone? Can we remove that if? > > > Then we would have to revisit lots of locations and get the old value > before resetting it. Passing NULL was a convenience. > Correct; the sheer amount of code using this convention makes it exceedingly painful to fix. It would be much easier to alter our internals. I'm *this* close to fugueing on TS especially and removing all PetscObjects from ctx arguments internal to PETSc. We can pass the TS around by PetscObjectCompose using the coarsen/restrict hooks. - Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120814/cd0a38be/attachment.html>
