On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Tim Jenness wrote:
> > You might also notice that GAIA and CCDPACK also have copies of this
> > routine.
>
> This sentence completely eptomises the difference in our two approaches
> :-)
>
> It's used in 3 different applications, prefixed with pda_ but shouldn't be
> factored out???
Tim,
sorry, I don't remember saying that, or meaning to say that, it seems
we're working at cross-purposes, by all means factor this code out. I was
mearly explaining the state of things, not offering some defence why they
should remain.
> It seems that the main problem is that the interface to pda_drnor does not
> match the interface to pda_rrnor. Would you be happier including it in PDA
> if it's name was changed to something like pda_drandom/pda_drandstart ?
Hmm, well the names should really be PDA_ followed by at most five
characters (SGP16), so something shorter is in order, I'll suggest,
PDA_DRANN PDA_DRANS, just to be helpful!
Peter.
|