> On May 19, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: > >> Jed, >> >> Should this utilize the Get/Restore paradigm? >> >> If not should the name be different to prevent confusion? Currently we >> have >> >> XXXCreate --> user needs to call a destroy >> >> XXXXGetYYY --> user needs to call a restore (but not always?) >> >> Could we introduce say >> >> XXXAccessYYY --> user does not call destroy or restore ? > > Even VecGetArrayRead requires matching Restore. Light access is less > safe and gives the library less opportunity for strictness to catch > bugs.
Sure, I am not advocating not having restores but if we do have things without restores a different name makes it clearer that it is providing a different kind of access.
