[petsc-dev] I hate this one

>> the checks are in src/contrib/style/checks/. You can run them from >> PETSC_DIR, but they currently check the full source tree only. > > Karl will be modifying them to be able to run directly on single source > files and subdirectories. And on modified files obtained from `hg status`...

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Milad Fatenejad wrote: > Thanks Karl! > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Karl Rupp wrote: > Hi Milad, > > the checks are in src/contrib/style/checks/. You can run them from PETSC_DIR, > but they currently check the full source tree only. Karl will be m

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

Thanks Karl! On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Karl Rupp wrote: > Hi Milad, > > the checks are in src/contrib/style/checks/. You can run them from > PETSC_DIR, but they currently check the full source tree only. Compare with > http://krupp.iue.tuwien.ac.at/**petsc-style/

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

Hi Milad, the checks are in src/contrib/style/checks/. You can run them from PETSC_DIR, but they currently check the full source tree only. Compare with http://krupp.iue.tuwien.ac.at/petsc-style/ to see whether you've introduced additional 'violations'. You can also generate the full HTML output

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

Hello: I am working on modifying PETSc to interoperate with the MOAB mesh library. I'd love to get some of Karl's scripts to ensure that my code is compliant with the style guide. Are they available somewhere? Thank You Milad On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Sean Farley wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Sean Farley gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Ah, ok, I wasn't paying that much attention. Then, I would stick to >> wrapping this with a hook. > > > It's not clear to me that the same functionality can be implemented

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > Ah, ok, I wasn't paying that much attention. Then, I would stick to > wrapping this with a hook. > It's not clear to me that the same functionality can be implemented using hg hooks. Looking at the documentation here, http://hgbook.red-bean.c

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Sean Farley gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> > Hg may have something similar, but git has "clean" and "smudge" filters >> > that >> > can be used to keep the working tree somehow different from what is in >> > the >> >

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > > Hg may have something similar, but git has "clean" and "smudge" filters > that > > can be used to keep the working tree somehow different from what is in > the > > repository. If someone wants to operate with a working tree that has > > diffe

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Knepley >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Eventually I hope to get to a stage where the format in the >> >> repository is fixed but we have a tool (

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>> >>> Eventually I hope to get to a stage where the format in the >>> repository is fixed but we have a tool (uncrustify is pretty good, but not >>> perfect) that puts it in that fo

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> > >> Eventually I hope to get to a stage where the format in the repository > >> is fixed but we have a tool (uncrustify is pretty good, but not perfect) > >> that puts it in

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >> >> Eventually I hope to get to a stage where the format in the repository is fixed but we have a tool (uncrustify is pretty good, but not perfect) that puts it in that form when committing/pushing? into the repository. This way you can

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > Matt, > > Eventually I hope to get to a stage where the format in the repository > is fixed but we have a tool (uncrustify is pretty good, but not perfect) > that puts it in that form when committing/pushing? into the repository. > Thi

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

Matt, Eventually I hope to get to a stage where the format in the repository is fixed but we have a tool (uncrustify is pretty good, but not perfect) that puts it in that form when committing/pushing? into the repository. This way you can have your uncrustify style that you use in your c

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Karl Rupp wrote: > Hi Matt, > > > > Again, there are limits to everything, and this surpasses the useful > >> limit to this kind of specification. This is not personal >> expression, this >> is ease of reading. >> >> >> Also, judging by the ENORMO

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Karl Rupp wrote: > Hi Matt, > > >> Again, there are limits to everything, and this surpasses the useful >> >> limit to this kind of specification. This is not personal >> expression, this >> is ease of reading. >> >> >> Also, judging by the ENORMOU

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

Hi Matt, > Again, there are limits to everything, and this surpasses the useful > limit to this kind of specification. This is not personal > expression, this > is ease of reading. > > > Also, judging by the ENORMOUS number of source code changes, "everyone" > was not following th

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> Again, the data does not support you. An incredible number of instances, >> and almost all files were changed. Thus, >> this was far from "unconventional". >> > > With a version from

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > Again, the data does not support you. An incredible number of instances, > and almost all files were changed. Thus, > this was far from "unconventional". > With a version from last week (before the formatting changes): $ git grep '^ \+fo

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> Again, there are limits to everything, and this surpasses the useful >> limit to this kind of specification. This is not personal expression, this >> is ease of reading. >> > > If it

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > Again, there are limits to everything, and this surpasses the useful limit > to this kind of specification. This is not personal expression, this > is ease of reading. > If it's significant enough to affect ease of reading, then it's sign

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >> >>> There is no getting over this. This is exactly why people hate these >>> standards. Prescribing a few, coarse >>> fea

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> There is no getting over this. This is exactly why people hate these >> standards. Prescribing a few, coarse >> features is fine and improves readability. Specifying the tiniest deta

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > There is no getting over this. This is exactly why people hate these > standards. Prescribing a few, coarse > features is fine and improves readability. Specifying the tiniest details > is senseless and intrusive fascism. > Uniform code m

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > You don't like the idea of whitespace in the diff or you don't like having > a space after if, while, and for? If the former, tell did to ignore > whitespace. If the latter, get over it. > There is no getting over this. This is exactly why peopl

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

You don't like the idea of whitespace in the diff or you don't like having a space after if, while, and for? If the former, tell did to ignore whitespace. If the latter, get over it. On Jan 21, 2013 8:10 AM, "Matthew Knepley" wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > >> On Mon

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> I thought we agreed that some of this is not crucial. I can't >> stand this in my code. Hate Hate Hate. >> > > Oh come on, three "Hate"s over using standard spacing (K&R and most other

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

Hi Matt, I couldn't trace back all non-documented style agreements. Also, there was no objection a couple of days back when I announced on the list that I will bring everything to a consistent state. Anyway, feel free to undo the commit AND then tell me which files should be excluded from this

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > I thought we agreed that some of this is not crucial. I can't > stand this in my code. Hate Hate Hate. > Oh come on, three "Hate"s over using standard spacing (K&R and most other style guidelines)? Consist code formatting is good. > > h

[petsc-dev] I hate this one

I thought we agreed that some of this is not crucial. I can't stand this in my code. Hate Hate Hate. https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-dev/commits/cf69a5905ee4 Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results