Re: Renaming libcruft

[John W. Eaton]

On 24-Aug-2012, Rik wrote:

| 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.

OK.

| >
| > | 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.

How about extracting the misc directory out of libfortran and putting
it with other miscellaneous functions in some other subdirectory of
liboctave?

Also, I don't see why we need to subdirectory "lib"fortran.  The
library built there will be there for convenience only.  We don't use
that naming for other directories that hold the sources that are used
to build other convenience libraries like corefcn.  Maybe just
numerical, misc-numerical, or something similar.  Naming the directory
"fortran" does let me know that the files there are probably written
in Fortran, but it doesn't tell me what purpose the files there have.

jwe