Re: packaging system

[Søren Hauberg]

Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> That's an interesting idea.  Another factor to take into account is
> that toolboxes are divided into Categories.  The reason we have INDEX
> files for octave forge is so that we can do classification of the
> functions.  Quoting from main INDEX file:
I'm beginning to see why you are so keen on using the INDEX format. The 
categories seem nice.
I do however don't like the idea of forcing people to create INDEX files 
(it seems like a very boring thing to do), so if the INDEX format is to 
be used I think we should have scripts to auto-generate such files. This 
should be possible, right?

/Søren

> # An index file has the following format:
> #
> #  toolbox >> Toolbox name
> #  Category Name
> #   fn fn fn
> #   fn fn fn
> #  Category Name
> #   fn
> #
> # Toolbox and category definitions are on the left, function
> # lists are indented.
> #
> # If no toolbox is specified, then the categories will go into
> # extra.  Only use this if you are contributing a small number
> # of specialized functions.
>
> system >> System Utilities
> Clock functions
>  now 
>  date 
>  clock 
>  cputime 
>  tic 
>  toc 
>  etime gmtime
>  ctime time localtime mktime
> Date conversion
>  is_leap_year
>  asctime
>  datenum 
>  datestr 
>  datevec 
>  weekday 
>  eomday 
>
> etc.
>
> This isn't something that has to implement immediately, but since we
> are designing a packaging structure, I believe it's worth taking into
> account.
>
> Regards
> Stéfan