[petsc-dev] configure issues

[Matthew Knepley]

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:33, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A single system, with real scoping, easy debugging, more readable code,
>> etc.
>
>
> Would you like a pony? What does this even mean? There is logic for a PETSc
> program to attach a debugger to itself. The details of that logic depends on
> tests that are run by configure. PETSc does not presently require Python at
> runtime. If you were to refactor it, where would the logic go and how would
> it be called from C?
>

If you refer to the first part of your comment above, it suggested
generating the correct code, and then questioned the utility of doing so:

What does this even mean?


  single system: Here I mean using just Python, rather than Python coupled
with the awfulness that is the C preprocessor

  real scoping: Python has nice scopes, rather than the underscore hell of
preprocessor names

  easy debugging: I can easily see the code I generated and debug it. This
is much more complicated with preprocessor logic

  readable code: See above

I cannot think of an argument for using the preprocessor.

    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110209/69039f26/attachment.html>