[petsc-dev] sor smoothers

[Barry Smith]

On Sep 8, 2013, at 4:09 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> 
>>   I actually like having the typedefs in these situations even if
>>   there is a portable alternative. It makes it clear what the purpose
>>   of the variable is, if everything is just labeled double, int or
>>   long int you don't know immediately what it represents. For example
>>   PetscErrorCode and PetscLogDouble (maybe a bad name) or
>>   PetscClassId.  We started with int for PetscErrorCode and I found
>>   changing it really clarified the source code.
>> 
>>  For these we could use PetscObjectState, PetscObjectId, or something
>>  else.
> 
> I have no problem with typedefs based on _intent_, but it may be that
> Petsc64bitUInt is unnecessary.  If stdint.h is now ubiquitious enough,
> then we just use
> 
>  typedef uint64_t PetscObjectId;

  Sure, this is just a configure/what systems people are using now issue. 

  I do note that in my reading Microsoft NEVER plans to support C99 (except parts that are in the C++ standards) so we can never switch to C99? http://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-and-c99/

  Barry