On 28 October 2010 06:45, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > 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? >
What about properly namespace everything, and also provide a compatibility header full of #define's , at least for the next couple of mayor releases? -- Lisandro Dalcin --------------- CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL) Predio CONICET-Santa Fe Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011) Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169
