Re: changes for next PETSc release

["Aron Ahmadia" <aja2111@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Can the namespace issue be fixed with some macro magic?

#ifdef UNIQUE_PETSC_NAMESPACE
#define Mat PetscMat
#endif

...
...

#undef Mat

This seems like it would satisfy both parties, and a compiler/build
flag could uniqueify the namespace if needed.

~A

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
>
>  >  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. 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.
>
>  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
>
>