create/destroy name change proposal

[Mark Miller]

On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 08:51, Tim Tautges wrote:

iMesh_newMesh --> iMesh_createMesh
iMesh_dtor --> iMesh_destroyMesh

Yes, thats better than iMesh_new and iMesh_destroy. I agree.

> 
> - I think we should allow apps to specialize on memory management, and the current API allows that well enough now
> 

What about iMesh_destroyMesh? Like Mark B., I think that SHOULD free
memory because it is destroying the whole of the iMesh instance and
there is no valid argument I think for having some objects within it
left around.

So, I think that caller's should be made aware of the fact that if they
expect an iMesh_destroyXXX (or even iMesh_removeXXX) to free memory,
that the iMesh specification makes no guarantees regarding free'ing of
memory. I think that is a common expectation for user's calling a
destroy (and maybe even a remove) function to have and I think they
should be forewarned that such expectation is not valid.

Mark

-- 
Mark C. Miller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
================!!LLNL BUSINESS ONLY!!================
miller86 at llnl.gov      urgent: miller86 at pager.llnl.gov
T:8-6 (925)-423-5901     M/W/Th:7-12,2-7 (530)-753-851