[petsc-dev] Stricter header includes

[Jed Brown]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> > I thought Developer meant "we are still figuring this out", or "you can
> really hurt yourself here", not "this is secret".
> >
> > That was my impression too. I thought the actual internal stuff did not
> have a generated man page.
>
>    So we don't need documentation for our own stuff? Consider the manual
> page for PetscHeaderCreate(), that is truly a "developer" operation which
> has a manual page and is in petscimpl.h (where it should be, it needn't be
> public). Maybe we need both a "Developer" level and a
> "Experimental"/"Dangerous"/"New" level?


Good point, anyone implementing a new KSP need to include "private"
headers. There are probably fewer people using PetscComposedData* so I
guess it's fine as a developer level operation.

As a general principle, I think everything implemented with a stable ABI
should go outside petsc-private, regardless of level. That's means pretty
much anything that does not depend on the struct definitions. This is also
encouragement to eliminate macros.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130212/53dc6c6f/attachment.html>