Vijay and Toby,
as I said, the deal.II way has traditionally been to specify everything
in the code and nothing on the command line. That has a lot to do with
the fact that I personally think that it's clearer and more
reproducible, and I have never quite understood how the PETSc behavior
can reliably be controlled if one has several nested solvers. But I
accept (i) that that conflicts with the PETSc viewpoint, and (ii) that
there are useful things one can do with PETSc by explicitly giving
command line flags. So I agree that what you try to do is useful.
There remains the question what should happen if what we specify in the
code does not match what is passed on the command line. I don't think it
is very useful if someone goes to lengths specifying something on the
command line just to find that it is ignored (that's not a question of
right or wrong; simply of utility). So I vote that the command line wins
over what we specify in the code. This is what your patch did, right?
Can I ask you to write a paragraph in the documentation of the
PETScWrappers::SolverBase class on how one could use this feature in
applications?
Best & thanks to both of you!
Wolfgang
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: [email protected]
www: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~bangerth/
_______________________________________________
dealii mailing list http://poisson.dealii.org/mailman/listinfo/dealii
