On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 19:44, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Verification of preprocess code is exactly as intensive, since you have to >> compile each version. What is your point here? >> > > You can see all possible variants using a widely used and standardized > language with editor support, the turn-around time for a correctness check > is less because you don't have to reconfigure. >
Again, I could say exactly the same thing. I can jsut look at the Python and see all possible variants. This is not an argument. > >> The code I had would have continued to work, rather than break. >> > > Why did you bother pulling/updating if you wanted to work with an old > version? This sounds more like a problem of you/the build system not knowing > when to reconfigure. > In my scenario, it would have been easy to tell what was going on. Here it was hard. Matt -- 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/20110315/c2197e09/attachment.html>