[petsc-dev] ugliness due to missing lapack routines

[Jed Brown]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> > 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".
>
>    You are imagining the "annotations in comments" and the "special
> keywords" I never said they would be there.
>
>    I want tools that OPERATE on C code. That is they take a chunk of pure
> C code as input and return a chunk of pure C code as output
> (the transformations I want to perform on the code are completely external
> to that chunk of code).  You still want to insist that the transformations
> I want to perform and the C code I want it performed on MUST be in the same
> file mixed together in a bunch of ASCII (i.e formatted comments or special
> keywords). I submit that this is absolutely the wrong way to do it (sorry
> Boyana).


I think we agree that PetscTryMethod and PetscOptionsBegin are not
expressible in C (without a lot of code duplication), but are an important
part of PETSc. That means your preprocessor thingy has to be told when to
inject that stuff. Since it can't possibly make the right decision every
time without you saying anything, you will have to tell it somehow. How do
you propose to do that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130207/5d4f78cb/attachment.html>