> > Yes if it were a going concern. I don't know how much the two have
> > diverged.
>
> David?
I think we are well into the realm of severe over-engineering with these
issues. I thought our primary task was to get the system into CVS and
working, as it currently exists in classic form. Have we done that
yet? Once we *have* done that *then* we can start thinking about
prettifying it, *if* that is seen as a higher priority than all the other
jobs which we had on our list at the end of the last programmers meeting.
Classic stuff is "not being developed" any longer - so why is making
CCDPACK stats routines more generally available an important issue? It
works, and can be maintained, as it is.
In fact grepping for "DSB" in kappa/ccdpack/*.f shows that 16 history
changes, including for instance new routine arguments, and a new
combination method.
David
|