I am fine with that as long as the doc is clear. Matt
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > There is a lack of symmetry in the meaning of PetscRandomGetValueReal() > and PetscRandomGetValueImaginary(). The real returns a PetscReal with a > random value in it. The imaginary returns a complex number with zero real > part and some imaginary part. > > I have changed PetscRandomSetInterval() to allow the real or imaginary > part of the interval to be zero. > > Thus one can get pure real complex numbers by setting the complex part of > low to high and get pure imaginary complex numbers by setting the real part > of low to high. > > Then we can eliminate PetscRandomGetValueImaginary(). I dislike it > (since it is ugly, has no real equivalent version (for example to get a > random number that is zero in the imaginary part I need to call > PetscRandomGetValueReal() and then stick that real value into a complex > number.)) > > What do you think? > > > Barry > > -- 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/20091026/9865e8a7/attachment.html>