On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Sean Farley <sean at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Matt had a major hissy fit when I proposed this (again) a couple of years > ago. > > What's wrong with a namespace? Isn't this what Matt is proposing the Thrust > developers do? > > "I reported it and they know about it. PETSc takes over VecType, and it would > be much easier (maybe) for Thrust to just namespace that thing." > > Everybody and their mother uses the names Mat, Vec, etc. why can't PETSc > namespace them? > > This is a matter of supporting existing users. Everyone that uses PETSc has > Vec and Mat everywhere in > their code. If we change that, we will have to have an excellent, easy, and > fullproof upgrade path or > everyone will hate us and may not even upgrade.
Everyone already hates us, so I can live with that. Etags (or ctags with Vim) is the way to go, plus it will force everyone to finally learn tags. People upgrade because there is a reason in the new release to upgrade, if there is no reason to upgrade then why upgrade? Barry > > Matt > > Sean > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments > is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments > lead. > -- Norbert Wiener
