[petsc-dev] ugliness due to missing lapack routines

[Jed Brown]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>  You need to know the right approach to everything you are going to do
> down to the last detail before you start a project?
>

I'd like to have a reason to believe it's not doomed from the start.


>
>    Hell when I start a project I just enter my editor and start typing :-)
>
>
>    Maybe instead of having a PetscOptionsBegin macro the entire
> XXXSetFromOptions() function is called multiple times by its caller to get
> the same effect. We don't need exact mappings from the current constructs
> to the new constructs so long as we have the same positive user experience.
> We are too quick to come up with CPP hacks to do something that we don't
> even contemplate other possibilities.
>

Sure, you can do this by creating a function that implements the "inner"
part of a PetscOptions block, packing all local variables you'd like to
register up into a struct that will be forwarded to the "inner" thing, and
passing them to the dispatcher. I don't think it adds any particular value
to do this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130207/294de9c2/attachment.html>