names of "module binaries" do not convey "feff8l"-ness

[newville]

names of "module binaries" do not convey "feff8l"-ness

[bruceravel]

I don't know that it was a good decision, but my thinking behind the libraries is that libonepath and libpotph are the Fortran entry points. That is, a Fortran programmer would want a familiar, Fortran-syntax way of getting into those two things. They both expose Fortran subroutines with a long argument lists.

libfeffpath and libfeffphase are fairly thin C wrappers which expose a data structure and map the data structure onto the Fortran subroutine calls in the other two libraries.

As I said, not necessarily the most sensible, but it's what I did when i did it, which was quite some time ago by now....

As for the executables, I replicated what Feff8 did as delivered and thought about improving upon it not at all. That wasn't a decision so much as a stopping point.

I am fine with executables named feff8l_*. I would also be fine with a small C or python program called feff8l which, when called without an argument, would run all of Feff in the original sense. When called with an argument, it would run the individual steps.

[newville]

addressed in #41, though the small feff8l program there is in Python (with no non-standard lib dependencies).