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

[Dmitry Karpeev]

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would you attach an option instead of having an equiv API call? Strings
> are ALWAYS a bad interface.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.
Currently we can attach named PetscObjects to a given object.
All I was suggested that name strings (one can think of them as
"properties") be attachable too,
but that might be introducing too much additional complexity.

Dmitry.
>   Matt
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>