Yes you have the history exactly right, but keeping them as independent
beasts seemed/seems impossible; except by doing something very cumbersome (like
shoving all the PCXXX_YYY that depended on KSP into the KSP src directory). So
the "opted" was really forced upon us.
Barry
> On May 4, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Dave May <dave.mayhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> That is, there used to be
> src/sles/ksp
> and
> src/sles/pc
> and rather than having ksp and pc as independent beasts living under src/ it
> was opted to keep them "coupled" wrt the directory tree and thus src/sles
> became src/ksp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Whereas e.g. Layout, SF, Section do not contain IS and also otherwise they
> > are basically unrelated except they all arrange some kind of index mapping.
> > And there are multiple utils ar different levels and nobody knows where to
> > put what. Plus all those have absolutely nothing in common with Vec.
> >
> > Vaclav
> >
> >>
> >> "Smith, Barry F." <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> >>
> >>> 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
