[petsc-dev] http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/a36eb42b26ee

[Jed Brown]

Did we just adopt a new line formatting convention and nobody told me?

          ierr =
PetscObjectGetOptionsPrefix((PetscObject)(ilink->ksp),&prefix);
CHKERRQ(ierr);
          ierr = PetscObjectSetOptionsPrefix((PetscObject)(dms[i]),
prefix);     CHKERRQ(ierr);
          ierr = KSPSetDM(ilink->ksp, dms[i]);
      CHKERRQ(ierr);
          ierr = KSPSetDMActive(ilink->ksp, PETSC_FALSE);
     CHKERRQ(ierr);
          ierr =
PetscObjectIncrementTabLevel((PetscObject)dms[i],(PetscObject)ilink->ksp,0);
CHKERRQ(ierr);

        }
        else {

        if(jac->reset)
          SETERRQ(((PetscObject)pc)->comm,PETSC_ERR_SUP,"Cases not yet
handled when PCReset() was used");

Knowing Barry, he's going to fix this formatting the next time he runs
across that file just to make it consistent (at the unfortunate expense of
making "hg annotate" less useful until the tools get better about tracing
backward through history).

Is the tab level above even correct? Why would the KSP tab level be
expected to match the DM tab level?

Do we need this new set of KSP-specific functions for manipulating tab
levels? There isn't a KSPTypeCompare(), etc. I thought the convention
within PETSc was that user-level APIs were usually exposed as type-specific
routines, but developer-level stuff used PetscObject directly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120607/26b77717/attachment.html>