On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: >> >> >> There are two significant changes I'd like to see before the >> next PETSc release: >> >> 1) remove the overly complicated (from a user perspective) matrix >> subclassing for the various external >> matrix solver packages and replace with MatSolverSetType() - >> mat_solver_type <type> that simply >> flips the various factorization/solver functions with those >> requested and > > This seems not too hard. Just a layer on top to run the code a user > must > run now.
It is not very hard, but piling shit on top of shit is not the best way to write software. I have a method to reorganize that removes the old shit thus both simplifying the model and making it more user friendly. > > >> 2) properly name-space PETSc by putting a Petsc in front of all PETSc >> objects, function names etc >> (this will require changing a few names also to keep them below >> the 32 character limit). This will >> be very painful change for some users who are not comfortable >> ever changing code, hence I hesitate >> to do it, but it is the right thing to do and should have been >> done originally. > > I guess I still do not see the need for this. NIMROD is a not a > sufficient > driver in my mind. You are an elitist who thinks that important ideas can only come from important/smart people. This I disagree strongly with, one should look everywhere, even at the local dump, for good ideas. NIMROD is not the driver, it is merely the spark. > If we really want namespaces, use a real language that > has namespaces. There are plenty. If we are still using C, I say we > stick > with the old division. The imposition of this much pain on the > overwhelming > majority of users seems unjustified. You seem to be saying we should stick with a bad decision I made many years ago, just because it is painful to change. When did you suddenly become conservative? > > > Namespaces issues can be trivially fixed in say C++, which we should > do. > > Matt > >> Maybe we can do a release in around a couple of months, it would >> be 2.4 >> >> 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 >