[petsc-dev] Jed didn't like the directory private but he has no problem with finclude?

[Jed Brown]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 20:19, Sean Farley <sean at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>    Since AR Jed felt we should change the name of include/private (and I
>> agree it was appropriate) shouldn't we also change the name of
>> include/finclude?  It has the same problem of  pollution when dumped in a
>> --prefix location.
>>
>>    Should it be petsc-fortran?  Or petsc-fortran-include?
>
>
> You can call PETSc from fortran? How quaint! How about
> include/petsc-quaint?
>

I would call it petsc-fortran if we are going to rename it. It's not a
conflict per se since the headers inside finclude/ are still namespaced. It
also impacts normal Fortran users which the private rename does not. I
don't feel strongly either way about doing the rename. We should probably
start recommending the use of modules instead of the #include stuff that is
currently required.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120329/f54dddc4/attachment.html>