PetscRandomGetValue(), PetscRandomGetValueReal(), PetscRandomGetValueImaginary()

[Matthew Knepley]

I am fine with that as long as the doc is clear.

  Matt

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
>   There is a lack of symmetry in the meaning of PetscRandomGetValueReal()
> and PetscRandomGetValueImaginary(). The real returns a PetscReal with a
> random value in it. The imaginary returns a complex number with zero real
> part and some imaginary part.
>
>   I have changed PetscRandomSetInterval() to allow the real or imaginary
> part of the interval to be zero.
>
>   Thus one can get pure real complex numbers by setting the complex part of
> low to high and get pure imaginary complex numbers by setting the real part
> of low to high.
>
>    Then we can eliminate PetscRandomGetValueImaginary(). I dislike it
> (since it is ugly, has no real equivalent version (for example to get a
> random number that is zero in the imaginary part I need to call
> PetscRandomGetValueReal() and then stick that real value into a complex
> number.))
>
>    What do you think?
>
>
>   Barry
>
>


-- 
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/20091026/9865e8a7/attachment.html>