Re: GSOC 2013 - FEM LIBRARY

[John W. Eaton]

On 05/31/2013 11:52 AM, Júlio Hoffimann wrote:
> >  Ideally, namespacing Octave classes should be done by some sort of CPP
> >  magic (read: not C++) so that it can be selectively enabled.
>
> Jordi,
>
> I think we can do it without pre-processing, I did a similar attempt in
> the past on a monstrous code base: LibreOffice proposal for consistent
> namespaces
> <http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Proposing-a-new-Easy-Hack-project-consistent-namespaces-td2826117.html#none>
>
> There was a flame war, but in the end people started to consider the
> proposal.

I don't think we need multiple namespaces for Octave.  Am I wrong?

If we use just one, what should it be?  Octave? octave? octave_org or 
perhaps org_octave (for the Java fans among us)?

If we add a namespace, then maybe we can do away with the octave_ prefix 
that we currently have attached to many of our functions.  But Steve 
needn't worry just yet -- I'm willing to keep the old names around (but 
tagged as deprecated) for at least a couple of major releases before we 
completely remove them.

> I'm not contributing to LibreOffice anymore, they care too
> much about backwards compatibility, that doesn't excite me.

Ha!

jwe