[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: packaging system

From: Paul Kienzle
Subject: Re: packaging system
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:29:51 -0400

On Jun 20, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Søren Hauberg wrote:

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?

Being responsible for the initial cut, I can attest to its tedium. It also needs constant maintenance as functions get added and removed. The admin/make_index tool on octave-forge warns about unindexed and missing functions.

In the absence of an INDEX file for a directory it would be easy to treat all indexed functions as belonging to the same category. You need to get the category description from somewhere though.

The INDEX spec allows you to place the same function in multiple categories. E.g., some of the signal processing functions might also be useful in image processing, so could be listed twice. This hopefully makes it easier for users to find what they need. The alphabetical list should only list each function once.

You can run make_index in a subdirectory to build a contents.m file in the usual Matlab style. INDEX could be one part of a larger documentation system, with detailed docs for each category and tools for automatically pulling together the category docs into a complete manual.

= {ai;

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]