Grumble about too strict an attitude about backward compatibility...

[Bengt Richter]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:58:04 -0500, Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> wrote:

>
>I don't want to wake any sleeping dogs, however, as I'm sitting here
>watching a bunch of Fortran function names fly by as SciPy builds, I'm
>reminded of the fairly recent threads about backward compatibility,
>Python-in-a-tie, etc.   Here I am compiling with a Fortran 90/95 compiler
>(Sun's Forte thing-a-ma-bob) and see function names like
>
>        lpni:
>        klvna:
>        chgubi:
>        cyzo:
>        klvnb:
>        rmn2so:
>        csphik:
>
>spew forth.  So, while it's great that this same large library compiles and
>runs on compilers back to at least Fortran 77 (and probably earlier),
>programmers are still stuck with the same cryptic function and data names
>they had to deal with 30+ years ago, all in the name of backward
>compatibility.
>
>What's the Python connection?  Other than a reminder not to get to slavish
>about backward compatibility, I note that these same function names will
>then go on to pollute the Python namespace because all this Fortran code is
>automatically wrapped using f2py.
>
Wrapping suggests an opportunity for new names, and keeping the old within the
confines of some module or other namespace(s).

So, would you like to choose appropriate new names for public interfaces ;-)
Maybe the renaming could be automated with appropriate config data for f2py?

Regards,
Bengt Richter