On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > I agree. We should remove all code (about 2/3 of it) which does a > >> > hierarchy of communicating dicts (the original design). That would > >> > make everything simple. No threads, no parents, etc. We leave in the > >> > help the way we want it, types for args, etc. One thing its notably > >> > missing, and that PETSc Options are missing, is listing the thing that > >> > set the option (default, command line, code, env). > >> > >> Does RDict even need to be persistent? Who all reads it? I wonder if > >> an existing human-readable file would be sufficient instead? > >> > > > > I think we should persist the entire set of options used to configure for > > later > > interrogation, however we have not done that much so far. > > CONFIGURE_OPTIONS is written to petscvariables and printed by make info. > I think fewer duplications is desirable. > This gets into a separate discussion. I think Python info is more useful since its directly visible to scripts we might write. Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
