On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:12:06PM +0200, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> søn, 19 07 2009 kl. 19:44 +0200, skrev Thomas Weber:
> > are there objections against moving lauchli.m from special-matrix into
> > miscellaneous and eliminating the (then empty) special-matrix package?
>
> I don't have any objections to moving this function elsewhere, but
> perhaps someone else does? Anyway, why should this function go into
> 'miscellaneous'? I'm not against this choice of package, I'm just
> curious as to why this one got picked.
Well, I couldn't think of a better place/package. For what it's worth,
we patched it into the "octave-miscellaneous" package in Debian over a
year ago and haven't received any complaints.
Maybe a strategy like the following would be good:
1) If you have 1-2 small functions, that fit nowhere in the more
specialized packages, put them into miscellaneous.
2) If functions are of general interest and not specialized, put them
into general.
Another candidate for such a treatment would be physical-constants,
which generates just one .m file (also its generation uses a Python
script).
Thomas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time,
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
