I think it is mostly historical reasons, we never refactored to have a common API and use the PetscUseMethod() to implement. I'd be happy to consider a refactorization in a pull request.
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Richard Tran Mills <rtmi...@anl.gov> wrote: > > Folks, > > I see that we have separate interface routines PCASMGetSubKSP(), > PCGASMGetSubKSP(), and PCBJacobiGetSubKSP(), all of which have an identical > interface and do the same thing. It seems like there ought to instead be just > one routine called something like PCGetSubKSP(). Is there a good reason that > we don't have this? Perhaps because there is also PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP(), > which has a different interface? We'd need a name other than PCGetSubKSP() to > prevent confusion between these. I suppose the ASM/GASM/BJacobi routines > really all do the same thing, but we break our naming conventions if we have > to have a get sub-KSP routine that works for these there things, and then one > that works for FieldSplit. > > OK, I think maybe I just answered my question, but I'd like to know if Barry > or others have thoughts on this. > > --Richard
