On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote:
> Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> writes:
> > That is not the same as printing unused arguments. Michael's Pythia
> > does this correctly, but it is even less simple.
> You want it to accept the unused arguments and just print them without
> error, or some more subtle relationship among dependent options?
Yes, I do. I consider PETSc to have the correct functionality. The open
assumption is a good one, as long as you report that no one accepted that
> here in a thread about not silently accepting options that *don't
> exist anywhere*.
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
-- Norbert Wiener