Peter Brune <[email protected]> writes: > It might be best to just pair things. Prefix matching sounds like a recipe > for ripping one's hair out over minutiae.
Let's ask petsc-dev. All, how should we deal with people forgetting to clear dynamic functions in XXDestroy_YY? > > - Peter > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Alternatively, we could have a PetscObject function that strips all >> functions that match a prefix like PCGAMGAgg* or PCGAMG*. >> >> Peter Brune <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > As I think I said on bitbucket (they're having a massive outage, >> > apparently), I'm going to create a branch where I make sure that each >> > composition is paired, because while it looks like this rule was followed >> > in TS, it certainly isn't followed anywhere else, and therefore didn't >> > appear to be a convention. >> > >> > - Peter >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Mark Adams <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> >> > I can't read bitbucket anymore. >> >> > >> >> > How can I undo: >> >> > >> >> > ierr = >> >> > >> >> >> PetscObjectComposeFunction((PetscObject)pc,"PCSetCoordinates_C",PCSetCoordinates_AGG);CHKERRQ(ierr); >> >> >> >> ierr = >> >> >> PetscObjectComposeFunction((PetscObject)pc,"PCSetCoordinates_C",NULL);CHKERRQ(ierr); >> >> >> >> just like PCDestroy_FieldSplit, KSPDestroy_GMRES, and hopefully all >> >> subtype destructors. >> >> >> >> > and I'm thinking we can sort of deprecated the PCSetCoordinates stuff. >> >> > Lets get ex54 working with PCSetCoordinates and remove it from all >> other >> >> > tests. Doing it the right way, with CreateRigidBodyModes solves >> Peter's >> >> > desire of getting it out of GAMG. If a user of PCSetCoordinates >> breaks, >> >> > when the change something, then we just tell them to update to the new >> >> > regime. Old users, like Sanjay G, do not need to be bothered. >> >> >> >> Sounds fine to me. >> >> >>
pgp9eDkiqnR8t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
