Re: Imploding pkg.m

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jordi,
>
> Il giorno 12/lug/2012, alle ore 18.57, address@hidden ha scritto:
>>
>> Can we please move the private functions of pkg.m back into pkg.m as
>> subfunctions? I don't find one-function-per-file to be easier to work
>> with than multiple functions per file.
>
> The idea was to make it more easy to find subfunctions that can be removed,
> once all simplifications have been made I see no problem with going back to
> subfunctions.
>
> Unfortunately I did not have enough time to complete my plan to remove 
> redundant subfunctions
> and it seems no one else took up the job ...
>
> But I still at list a few that make very little sense, e.g. 
> "absolute_pathname".
> Maybe this should a task for one of the codesprints at OctConf? Can you wait 
> until then before you put everything together again?
>
>
>> You don't do
>> one-function-per-file in any other language, do you?
>
> actually I sort of do ;)
>
>
>> - Jordi G. H.
> c.
>

We should have a talk about pkg.m in the meeting that is for sure.
Also is probably one of the only functions where I can do significatn
contributions, I might be able to make a code sprint on it, maybe
carandraug will join.

I also prefer to work with multiple files, but I guess we shouold put
pkg.m back together anyway. Once we could see what parts can be
removed/improved.




-- 
M. Sc. Juan Pablo Carbajal
-----
PhD Student
University of Zürich
http://ailab.ifi.uzh.ch/carbajal/