[petsc-dev] questions on new include organization

[Barry Smith]

On Feb 13, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> 
> 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.

  Understood. I already noted in my initial email that it would be split.

   Barry

>  
> 
>    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. ;-)