Agree on both points.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 19:13, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 19:07, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> This could be done by putting into the C code the usual "case" handling for >>> the new viewer and then have >>> it dispatch back to the python code. >> >> Right, but then it sounds like you're distributing the viewer with >> PETSc (instead of petsc4py of some third-party plugin). > > ?No, the viewer is distributed with petsc4py or some other package, but yes > the PETSc source code is augmented also. In fact one could organize it so one > extra "dispatcher" could support many different python viewers; essentially a > shell Viewer :-) > > >> ?We had a long >> thread a while ago about making multiple dispatch runtime-extensible >> in both arguments. > > ? I was just pointing out that something "quick and dirty" can be done now > without the multiple dispatch system. > > ? I am not opposed to a multiple dispatch system to handle this; but no one > has proposed specifics for such a system that pass the "good enough for > PETSc" test. > > ?Barry > >> >> Jed > >
