Thank you very much everybody for the prompt help. Amal On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote:
> 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 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20100927/34185809/attachment.htm>
