Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > So the rationale for this is when we change backend types?
Yes, when we changed implementations, we shouldn't be contaminated by whatever came before, but if the user does PCSetType(pc,PCASM); PetscObjectComposeFunction(pc,"TheirFunction",TheirFunction); PCSetType(pc,PCGAMG); Their function should not be removed. Thus the thought of clearing based on a prefix. > Is it worth anything more than a convention? If so, what about just having > a count in PetscObject that gets checked in the teardown process. 1. How do we check the convention? It's very error-prone at present. 2. See above for why a simple count is not good enough.
pgpFzdD9uXI0r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
