Re: Renaming libcruft

[Rik]

On 08/24/2012 12:26 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
>
> | I would keep the code together since it is a very distinct entity and makes
> | a natural convenience sub-library for liboctave.
>
> What about subdividing the other parts of liboctave, similar to what
> we did for what was in src (now libinterp)?
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I'm for dividing the other parts of
liboctave into more manageable chunks like libarray, etc.

>
> | The fact that it is
> | Fortran really segregates it in my mind from the rest of the C++ sources. 
> | I would still change the directory name away from libcruft to libfortran.
>
> Not all the code in libcruft is Fortran.  Look at the misc directory.
> That's mostly for interfacing C with Fortran, but it also has the
> lowest-level error handling functions and variables.
Does this rule out calling the new directory libfortran then, or can we
overlook the ~2.7% of the code in misc which is non-Fortran? 
Alternatively, we could somehow reference netlib if that's where this code
came from.

--Rik