Re: GSL random stuff

[Gerard Jungman <jungman@lanl.gov>]

Brian Gough wrote:
> 
> Note that users' includes would look like
> 
> #include <gsl/gsl_sf.h>
> 
> Do you still want the the gsl_ prefix or would you prefer the following?
> 
> #include <gsl/sf.h>

I'm easy about this. In some platonic sense, I prefer the second.
But I agree that you lose the information about what is exported,
and that is unacceptable. In the old days, I would make separate
".../include" directories which contained the exported headers.
That gets annoying though, since you have to change directory
to look at them or edit them, so I consider this unacceptable
as well.

So I think we should just leave it the way it is for now,
with #include <gsl/gsl_sf.h>. It's only mildly offensive
to the eye.

Since this reply is already getting long-winded, I might as
as well continue and rant about the torture of developing
with "tools" from the 1970's. We work in a zero-intelligience
development environment. Questions like "what is exported",
or "where is the implementation of gsl_foo()", or "is this
inline implementation of gsl_foo() consistent with the stand-in
implementation code in foo.c", etc., are all meta-information
questions that should be managed by the development environment.
I'm getting old. And I'm getting tired of the brain-dead lowest
common-denominator *nix world. End of rant.


-- 
G. Jungman