On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>
>> So I guess you will not like to change the option to -pc_factor_solver,
>> right?
>
> ?No, but I hate the idea of two names for the same thing even ten times
> more.
>
OK, agreed, two names for the same thing is not good... Too bad I have
n
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> ? I do not understand your question. Are you suggesting a shorter alias that
> means the same thing as the original longer option?
>
Yes :-) ...
>
> ? If so, absolutely NOT.
>
So I guess you will not like to change the option to -pc_factor_
The reason the _mat_ is in there is because the level of the
operation is in the Mat methods not in PC methods
One could argue about the _package. The alternative would be the
word _type but I selected package to make
it really clear this means the "package" where the solver comes from
On May 6, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Barry Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> I do not understand your question. Are you suggesting a shorter
>> alias that
>> means the same thing as the original longer option?
>>
>
> Yes :-) ...
>
>>
>> If so, absolutel
What to you think about also accepting "-pc_factor_solver" (as a
second chance if the former -pc_factor_mat_solver_package is not
found) ?
--
Lisandro Dalc?n
---
Centro Internacional de M?todos Computacionales en Ingenier?a (CIMEC)
Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnol?gico para la Industri
I do not understand your question. Are you suggesting a shorter
alias that means the same thing as the original longer option?
If so, absolutely NOT.
Barry
On May 6, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> What to you think about also accepting "-pc_factor_solver" (as a
>
