Ok
> On May 4, 2019, at 12:45 AM, Václav Hapla <vaclav.ha...@erdw.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
> 4. května 2019 1:08:09 GMT+03:00, "Smith, Barry F." <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov>
> napsal:
>>
>>
>>> On May 3, 2019, at 5:00 PM, Hapla Vaclav <vaclav.ha...@erdw.ethz.ch>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, so index, idx, other idea?
>>
>> I'm not sure index is that informative (and not expansive enough).
>> petscdm.h means nothing, maybe something short that doesn't mean
>> anything?
>
> Ok, that directly suggests im. One can interpret is as index
> mapping/management.
>
>>
>>>
>>> If we would have layout, is, sf, section in the same subdir, I would
>> move there also ao and ltog.
>>
>> Sure
>>
>>>
>>> What about the headers - I guess having all those classes in one
>> would be easier to handle and avoid circular dependencies, and would
>> reflect the directory structure. But should we keep separate
>> petsc{ao,is,sf}.h, then I would suggest also separate
>> petsc{layout,section,ltog}.h
>>
>> Separate is better.
>>
>>>
>>> When we are at it, why we sometimes have <class>types.h and sometimes
>> not?
>>
>> We add these "as needed"; Jed can explain better exactly when they are
>> needed.
>>
>>>
>>> Vaclav
>>>
>>> (added CC to petsc-dev)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> map
>>>>> imap
>>>>> idxmap
>>>>> ... or something alike.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vaclav
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vaclav
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not at lest make an additional level between Sys and Vec for
>> those sectioning utilities? Would make more sense to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vaclav
