On Apr 7, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >> That was my rationalization for ugly code; until a better solution >> appeared and I no longer needed the rationalization :-) > > Okay, are we removing _all_ those casts, or only for a few highly-used > PetscObject functions? PetscObjectComm() is one we changed recently. Seems inconsistent to only handle the cast automatically for some. We should do it all or nothing. That is be C++ish and let the user always pass a subclass where the class is expected or be C ish and always require the cast. > > Note that absorbing the cast into the macro is backward-compatible in > that code with an explicit cast continues to work without a warning. Ok, then we shouldn't make this change, you know I hate changes that are backward compatible :-)
