[gmx-developers] Re: abstract type convention

Berk Hess hess at kth.se
Mon Jun 10 14:54:15 CEST 2013

On 6/10/13 14:49 , Peter Kasson wrote:
> My understanding is that our c++ convention is to use the gmx 
> namespace, right?
> http://www.gromacs.org/index.php?title=Developer_Zone/Programming_Guide/Allowed_C%2B%2B_Features
> The example there of gmx::gmx_unique_ptr does seem a little redundant. 
>  If we're using the gmx namespace, then it would seem we'd want to 
> ditch the gmx prefix.  Is that what you're suggesting, Berk?
I was still talking about C, not C++.
In C++ we should certainly ditch the gmx_ prefix.
In C as well in 5.0, as all C code should be hidden behind a C++ api, I 
The question is how far we will get with that before a 5.0 release date. 
Anyhow, all data structure disentangling work I will now involves low 
level stuff, except maybe for some of the higher level communication 


> Thanks,
> --Peter
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Kasson, MD, PhD
> Assistant Professor
> Departments of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics
> and of Biomedical Engineering
> University of Virginia

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillist.sys.kth.se/pipermail/gromacs.org_gmx-developers/attachments/20130610/2ec46467/attachment.html>

More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers mailing list