On Feb 13, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Regardless of exactly how this shakes out I think you both have to agree > that PetscSection is a bit of an oddball and it should be more "integrated" > with the "IS stuff" in that we have a single source code location (directory) > and set of concepts related to indexing things. And don't have some in the > Vec directory. > So, for now, I won't change names or functionality but would like > permission to move source around. Who knows, maybe in the end the is > directory will get a more suitable name. > > That's fine with me, but note that vsection.c depends on Vec, but IS does not > depend on Vec. vsection.c depends on Vec so it can't simply be moved to > src/vec/is. Understood. I already noted in my initial email that it would be split. Barry > > > Barry > > As you know I really really like having names that convey connections left to > right, KSPGMRES, PC_ILU etc. I think this helps make the learning and > understanding curve lower. Now people see IS and PetscSection and they are > two completely unrelated things to their eyes but in fact they are not > unrelated and I would like to convey that somehow in the future. > > BTW: I consider it a terrible tragedy that in (for example C++ and Java) one > can define a subclass of a class and just use a completely arbitrary ASCII > name for the subclass completely unrelated to the class it is derived from, > talk about losing information. > > Just be glad not too many projects chose the German way, using a three-term > recurrence to compute the designation order, and always withholding the verb > until the end. ;-)
