On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 April 2010 23:32, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > > Why would you attach an option instead of having an equiv API call? > > > > Do PETSc have an equivalent API call for every option you can set > using options database? I think we do. If we do not, then we should. > > Strings > > are ALWAYS a bad interface. > > But they are generic... I would love to to have a > {KSP|PC|SNES|TS}SetOptions() to pass name,value pairs of options... > Right now, every time I need it, I have to play with the GLOBAL > options database. > > Think about MPI_Info ... Without it, the MPI API should be far more > complex for very little to gain... IMHO, your "ALWAYS" is a bit > strong :-) I am not backing off of this one. I hate MPI_Info. This is exactly what made the TSTT Mesh Interface so terrible. Everything was stuck in a property. You could not tell anything from the API. Matt > > -- > Lisandro Dalcin > --------------- > Centro Internacional de M?todos Computacionales en Ingenier?a (CIMEC) > Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnol?gico para la Industria Qu?mica (INTEC) > Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient?ficas y T?cnicas (CONICET) > PTLC - G?emes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina > Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594 > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100406/b664276a/attachment.html>