[petsc-dev] coding style

[Munson, Todd]

Exactly, its only for a quadratic programming solver, so the user
is claiming their model is quadratic and the solver
extracts the matrices.

Todd.

> On Aug 18, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
> 
> "Oxberry, Geoffrey Malcolm" <oxberry1 at llnl.gov> writes:
> 
>> I realize this point was brought up earlier, but doesn’t this
>> discussion still assume that evaluating g at zero is defined and makes
>> sense? Though I see the appeal in this design, I’m not sure it will
>> necessarily work in practice. For instance, we definitely have
>> formulations that involve terms like sqrt(x), which isn’t
>> differentiable at zero, and would break this interface. (We would
>> bound the feasible set away from zero, so the optimization algorithm
>> should still work.)
> 
> Isn't the context of this particular comment that the user claims their
> model is quadratic?  Of course evaluating at 0 has no special meaning
> for a general nonlinear model.
> 
>>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Munson, Todd <tmunson at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> People are free to use MatShell to create a "matrix" that is
>>>> actually a nonlinear operator.  Solvers won't work properly if it's
>>>> not, but that's their problem.
>>> 
>>> The quadratic programming solvers in our case will happily go and
>>> tell you it solved the problem...however, the problem it solved uses
>>> 
>>> c = grad[g(0)] H = hess[g(0)]
>>> 
>>> I'd be happier if the solver barfed and told the user to select a
>>> method appropriate for their real problem -- it it truly is nonlinear
>>> -- rather than going off and solving the wrong problem, which is what
>>> is done today.
>>> 
>>> Todd.
>>>