Pushed. Off to play Pandemic On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > Ok, I did an implementation with petscdrawtypes.h included by petscdraw.h, > petscksp.h and petscsnes.h > > Should it go in petsc-private because it generally doesn't make sense for > users to include directly? Or stay out of petsc-private because it's "safe" > to include if that's what they want? > > not ideal (I hate having lots of little includes around) but it does keep > the PetscDrawLG typedef out of petscys.h > > People ok with me pushing? > > Yup, should I try doing the same with petscdm.h? I see it as perhaps the > biggest funny dependency exposed by include-graph.sh. > > > Barry > > Currently only PetscDrawLG is in there, since that is the only one needed but > others or all could be put there if desired. > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > Heh, I thought I remembered that duplicate typedefs were invalid in C, but > > gcc happily compiled it without a warning. In fact, they _are_ allowed in > > C11, but not in our old, crusty version of C. > > > > From the looks of it, the C forum never explicitly intended for it to be > > invalid, but as a consequence of the classification of typedef in C > > (typedef is classified differently in C++), it would have needed to be > > explicitly allowed. C11 added that clause. > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/a/8595191/33208 > > > >
