Naming considerations for cepa(0)

After mulling it over, I think I’ll advocate for the table below. cepa(0) shall mean cepa w/singles. cepa(0) shall access only fnocc (conv, rhf) and needn’t be a managed method. lccd shall become a managed method, looking a whole lot like the managed cepa0 looks now, only it shall be careful to set no-singles when calling fnocc (so that lccd produces identical values in both modules). Similarly, ocepa(0) shall become olccd. For completeness, lccsd shall be available as an alias to cepa(0).

energy() call	| occ/dfocc  | fnocc          | managed?
================|============|================|================|
lccd		| lccd	     | lccd, w/o sing | yes
lccsd		| - - -      | lccd, w/ sing  | no, fnocc only
cepa(0)		| - - -      | lccd, w/ sing  | no, fnocc only
================|============|================|
olccd           | olccd      | - - - 

One further issue that must be addressed is which *_TYPE variable shall govern the conv/df/cd of these methods. Right now it’s CEPA_TYPE, but that’s confusing it it’s now the cc[s]d notation primarily. How about dropping CEPA_TYPE and governing the lot with CC_TYPE?

Last call for reserving l for local.