On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote: > That's just a typo on my part. > I'm rewriting the whole SA ball of wax, but I can push a quicker fix > for this too,
What do you mean typo? I fixed the repository so that the declaration and the prototype match. You don't need to do anything. But my question remains, should we const declare function arguments? barry > but, unfortunately, I won't be able to do that untill next Monday. > > > Dmitry. > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> Some declarations of the form >> >> extern PetscErrorCode SAAddData(SA arr, const PetscInt len, const PetscInt >> *ia, const PetscScalar *wa, const PetscInt *ja); >> >> have crept into PETSc. const PetscInt len >> >> Do we want to have such beasties? What purpose do they serve? >> >> My understanding is that it is contaminating the entire code (because of the >> extern PetscErrorCode SAAddData(SA arr, const PetscInt len, const PetscInt >> *ia, const PetscScalar *wa, const PetscInt *ja); with the knowledge that >> internally the subroutine never changes the value of the stack variable >> function which is the opposite of encapsulation. What am I missing? Is this >> just stupid C syntax, is there a better way? >> >> Thanks >> >> Barry >> >>
