[petsc-dev] ugliness due to missing lapack routines

[Jed Brown]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> The reason I am insistent on minimizing CPP is that it is easy to teach a
> pure C manipulator stuff. It is very difficult (I submit) to teach a CPP +
> C manipulator much of anything expecially when "nasty" CPP tricks are used.
> Plus there are good C manipulation tools coming on line, there are no, and
> never will be, good CPP + C manipulation tools.


But you're still not proposing manipulating pure C. You're proposing
manipulating your new language that looks like C with annotations in
comments or special keywords or new control structures or something and can
be compiled to C by your "preprocessor".

Sure, some (maybe substantial) parts of the code will be equivalent to pure
C (with programmable semicolons or whatever, in the sense that error
handling gets injected except where it's explicitly told not to), but you
can also "manipulate" C+CPP code in the sense that you can expand all the
macros and then you'll actually have C semantics so that the manipulations
make sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130207/c1e4e122/attachment.html>