[petsc-dev] questions on new include organization

[Jed Brown]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>   Regardless of exactly how this shakes out I think you both have to agree
> that PetscSection is a bit of an oddball and it should be more "integrated"
> with the "IS stuff" in that we have a single source code location
> (directory) and set of concepts related to indexing things. And don't have
> some in the Vec directory.
>    So, for now, I won't change names or functionality but would like
> permission to move source around. Who knows, maybe in the end the is
> directory will get a more suitable name.
>

That's fine with me, but note that vsection.c depends on Vec, but IS does
not depend on Vec. vsection.c depends on Vec so it can't simply be moved to
src/vec/is.


>
>    Barry
>
> As you know I really really like having names that convey connections left
> to right, KSPGMRES, PC_ILU  etc. I think this helps make the learning and
> understanding curve lower. Now people see IS and PetscSection and they are
> two completely unrelated things to their eyes but in fact they are not
> unrelated and I would like to convey that somehow in the future.
>
> BTW: I consider it a terrible tragedy that in (for example C++ and Java)
> one can define a subclass of a class and just use a completely arbitrary
> ASCII name for the subclass completely unrelated to the class it is derived
> from, talk about losing information.
>

Just be glad not too many projects chose the German way, using a three-term
recurrence to compute the designation order, and always withholding the
verb until the end. ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130213/15fe61db/attachment.html>