Nvm, int, not string. My bad...
Sent from a mobile device On Sep 23, 2012, at 12:37 AM, "Blaise A Bourdin" <bourdin at lsu.edu> wrote: > I'm not sure if I'm following the whole discussion but isn't the index > fortran intrinsic the equivalent of this PetscFindInt? (Modulo returning a > negative value) In which case, not having a fortran binding would not be a > big deal. > > Blaise > > Sent from a mobile device > > On Sep 22, 2012, at 11:36 PM, "Jed Brown" <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I am fine with overloading the return value. It won't change how I use it. >> >> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/4abec2d5e3ad >> >> It's a shame we can't have C99-style "inline" semantics. I'd like to give >> the compiler the option of inlining it, but I don't know how to do Fortran >> bindings for that (other than write it custom) if I make it a >> PETSC_STATIC_INLINE. Oh well, that can wait. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120923/9f12525b/attachment.html>
