"Smith, Barry F." <[email protected]> writes: >> On Nov 9, 2017, at 11:13 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "Smith, Barry F." <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Jed, >>> >>> Please articulate in a bit more detail. From what I can interpolate you >>> are saying >>> >>> 1) that if we only propagate the outer matrices to inner matrices that the >>> user has not set we will get a better more intuitive interface for users >>> >>> but >>> >>> 2) the whole idea of propagating in is probably flawed. >> >> The idea of having only two matrices, Amat and Pmat, is flawed. > > Yes > >> A >> composite preconditioner, for example, may need more. Having users >> unwrap solvers to manually set matrices is ugly, but in lieu of a better >> way (like named auxiliary matrices that can be requested by nested >> preconditioners), we should honor the user's manual choices. > > Yes. > > But you are not directly answering my question. Should we change > the code to not propagate if already set?
Yes, I think so. That is what I meant by "we should honor the user's manual choices" above.
