<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "> <div> PetscObjectAddOptionsHandler(PetscObject, PetscErrorCode (*)(PetscObject,void*),void *ctx) ?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> Barry<br><div><div>On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">I am for the uniform PetscObjectAddOptionsChecker(). Should it really be called<div>Checker? Sounds like validation. I think there is some value in treating SetFromOptions</div><div>as a generic facility that can be extended. This is "aspect oriented programming" :)</div>
<div><br></div><div> Matt<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Barry Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bsmith@mcs.anl.gov">bsmith@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
KSPAddOptionsChecker() is never used in PETSc. Is it needed? Can it be removed?<br>
<br>
Or should we have a PetscObjectAddOptionsChecker() instead, thus expanding this (unneeded capability) to all PETSc objects/solvers?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Barry<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>-- Norbert Wiener<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>