On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > I thought Developer meant "we are still figuring this out", or "you can > really hurt yourself here", not "this is secret". > > > > That was my impression too. I thought the actual internal stuff did not > have a generated man page. > > So we don't need documentation for our own stuff? Consider the manual > page for PetscHeaderCreate(), that is truly a "developer" operation which > has a manual page and is in petscimpl.h (where it should be, it needn't be > public). Maybe we need both a "Developer" level and a > "Experimental"/"Dangerous"/"New" level? Good point, anyone implementing a new KSP need to include "private" headers. There are probably fewer people using PetscComposedData* so I guess it's fine as a developer level operation. As a general principle, I think everything implemented with a stable ABI should go outside petsc-private, regardless of level. That's means pretty much anything that does not depend on the struct definitions. This is also encouragement to eliminate macros. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130212/53dc6c6f/attachment-0001.html>
