[petsc-dev] Remove calls to XXXReset() in XXXDestroy()

[Lisandro Dalcin]

On 13 May 2011 15:50, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>
>> On 13 May 2011 01:51, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 12, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Barry, now I want to understand: Why did you coded XXXDestroy() to
>> call XXXReset()? Was that just to avoid code duplication? Or is it
>> there some other rationale?
>
>   XXXReset() is a "partial" destroy.
>

I do not agree with your definition, though I understand your point.
But if you think that Reset() is a partial destroy, and agree that the
MatPreallocated() hack I removed was a good fix, then we can go on and
let things stay as today.

>
>     I would state that any language that makes it impossible or cumbersome to have a destructor call another method on the destructed object (you claim python and C++?) is very fragile and should be rethought.
>

Again, this is because in PETSc you do not care about error recovery,
you just MPI_Abort() in normal cases, or offer no guarantees about
continuing execution after errors. I'm not blaming PETSc for this, it
is just like MPI-2!. BTW, Writing a REALLY good destructor in C++ is a
pain. What's happens if an exception is thrown in the middle of object
destruction and you still have things to delete[]?


-- 
Lisandro Dalcin
---------------
CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL)
Predio CONICET-Santa Fe
Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo
3000 Santa Fe, Argentina
Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011)
Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169