On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 20:19, Sean Farley <sean at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Since AR Jed felt we should change the name of include/private (and I >> agree it was appropriate) shouldn't we also change the name of >> include/finclude? It has the same problem of pollution when dumped in a >> --prefix location. >> >> Should it be petsc-fortran? Or petsc-fortran-include? > > > You can call PETSc from fortran? How quaint! How about > include/petsc-quaint? > I would call it petsc-fortran if we are going to rename it. It's not a conflict per se since the headers inside finclude/ are still namespaced. It also impacts normal Fortran users which the private rename does not. I don't feel strongly either way about doing the rename. We should probably start recommending the use of modules instead of the #include stuff that is currently required. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120329/f54dddc4/attachment.html>
