On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Ok, so you are suggesting the same functions/options database as today > except that : separated strings for alternatives? > Yes > > Note that PetscFListGetPathAndFunction() which is used by all the > checkers handles the form [/path/libname[.so.1.0]:]functionname[()] so : is > already reserved. I would suggest | but the damn shell would require always > protecting the arguments with "". > Maybe comma since semicolon is also taken. Pipe isn't that bad because usually people would be using this notation from an options file. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20130107/ac381a5c/attachment.html>
