I think so. Libmesh doesn't have so many users that we shouldn't be allowed to evolve the API if there are justifiable causes.
I mean, we don't want to break everyone's code all the time, but we shouldn't be so beholden to the old API just for the cause of backward compatibility. Derek Sent from my iPhone On Feb 1, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Roy Stogner <royst...@ices.utexas.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Derek Gaston wrote: > >> Also: Screw backward compatibility. �libMesh has been moving away from >> function pointer stuff for a while (like Ben's new NonlinearSystem stuff). >> �Let's move to an all object oriented interface > > Does "Screw backward compatibility in favor of OOP" extend to "Screw > backward compatibility in favor of generic programming"? I'd like to > template FunctionBase around its return value type, but even with the > default template argument "typename Output=Number", code which uses > FunctionBase has to be rewritten to use FunctionBase<>. > --- > Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
