From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,859116256d0a7bc2
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.223.73 with SMTP id qs9mr3770982pbc.7.1343789455949;
        Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 g9ni9632825pbo.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: basic question on nested packages
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:52:10 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <jv0na2$b3p$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <juvlur$5du$1@speranza.aioe.org> <a7i3ndF8h9U1@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: nma@12000.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9ii5QNw33OfeoTzEH8w9ug.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-07-28T07:52:10-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 7/28/2012 7:19 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 12-07-28 06:22 , Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> I'd like to improve the structure of the Ada lapack binding
>> to make it easier to use.
>>
>> The official Fortran lapack is structured as follows
>>
>>                                 lapack
>>                                   +
>>                                   |
>>                  +----------------+-------------------+
>>                  |                |                   |
>>               driver routines    computational     auxiliary
>>

....
>>
>> Hence it will be, for the API's
>>
>>     lapack.driver.foo()
>>     lapack.comp.foo()
>>     lapack.aux.foo()
>>     lapack.IO.foo()

>
> I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask why you don't put it all in
> one package, lapack.
>
> Is there any benefit to writing a call as "lapack.driver.SGESV" instead
> of directly as "lapack.SGESV"? Is there some risk of ambiguity, with the
> name SGESV defined with different meaning in the different packages?
>

Main reason is just to keep things organized as in the Fortran tradition
of the original lapack:

http://www.netlib.org/lapack/lug/node22.html

"
The subroutines in LAPACK are classified as follows:
     driver routines, ....
     computational routines.....
     auxiliary routines....
"

So someone used to using lapack would find it easier if there are 3
packages that correspond to those 3 areas.

I assume that is the reason Wasu Chaopanon (who made the binding)
did it this way as you can see here (one of hosting sites for
the binding)

http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/OLD/contrib/lapack-ada/README

So, I think it is better to keep this layout? But putting all
the packages all under one package name "lapack" in order to reduce
name space is all what I did.

thanks,
--Nasser