Re: "hidden" public package functions

[Julien Bect]

Le 19/06/2017 à 16:45, Olaf Till a écrit :
> > Isn't it ok if the package manager simply omits these functions from the
> > INDEX ?
> >
> > (In the stk package I put them in comments.)
> I know. But they should be known to the website, to enable duplicate
> checking. And if they are listed at the pages relevant for duplicate
> checking, there should, IMO, also exist a page with the function help
> text, for consistency.I wouldn't have thought that exposing an
> appropriate function help text should be problematic.

It is not *very* problematic.  I just prefer to avoid exposing the name 
(not only the help text) of these functions.


> That's my suggestion. If you leave them out of INDEX, or comment them,
> there'll be no duplicate checking for them. Well, that wouldn't be
> fatal in this case, probably. But it's not ideal.

Certainly not fatal, since all functions in the stk package start with 
the stk_ prefix.

So, as long as having *all* public functions and classes listed in the 
INDEX is not mandatory for OF release, I prefer to leave things as they are.

Not ideal, I agree.  What would be ideal would be to have namespaces in 
Octave ;-)


> Anyway, I think I'll remove the statement 'this category (Internal)
> will be handled specially...' from the developers page.

That's perfectly fine with me.

@++