[petsc-dev] post 3.1 reorganization of PETSc DMMG code

[Dmitry Karpeev]

On a somewhat related note: would it make sense to have the functionality to
attach options or just character strings to PetscObjects?
We have ways of attaching reals, ints and arrays
thereof to objects, but not character strings or options (named strings).
I would find it convenient in various situations.
It would also mirror the way we are able to compose named functions or
PetscObjects
with a given PetscObject.

Dmitry.

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>  I think this is a fine idea and have no problem with someone implementing
> it.
>
>   Barry
>
> On Mar 21, 2010, at 4:04 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As a separate issue, when talking about bigger multiphysics problems, I
>> would really like namespaced options.  This could be as quick-and-dirty
>> as
>>
>>  -prefix_push something_ -other -options -prefix_pop
>>
>> which would mean
>>
>>  -something_other -something_options
>>
>> In particular, this would have to work with
>>
>>  -prefix_push fieldsplit_physics1_ -options_file physics1-solver
>> -prefix_pop
>>
>> where everything in 'physics1-solver' would be under this prefix.
>> Alternatively (or additionally), a parser for yaml options would allow
>> this composition.
>>
>> Jed
>
>