|
From: | Søren Hauberg |
Subject: | Re: packaging system |
Date: | Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:32:59 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404) |
Bill Denney wrote:
Toolboxes could work as follows:They become packages with no specific functions. When a package is part of a toolbox, it is symlinked into the toolbox directory, and within the toolbox directory is effectively nothing. Then, when "help toolboxname" is called, it will scan each subdirectory for functions. This could be done as follows:OCTAVE_PACKAGE_DIR/package-1.1/ OCTAVE_PACKAGE_DIR/package2-4.8/ OCTAVE_PACKAGE_DIR/toolbox-1.0/ package-1.1 -> ../package-1.1 package2-4.8 -> ../package2-4.8 where the package directories are symlinks.
Couldn't this create an infinite loop? OCTAVE_PACKAGE_DIR/package-1.1/ package2-4.8 -> ../package2-4.8 OCTAVE_PACKAGE_DIR/package2-4.8/ package-1.1 -> ../package-1.1
Another option would be to have a similar functionality, but have a single file in the toolbox-1.0 directory (along with the package symlinks) named toolbox.m (where toolbox is the name of the toolbox). This file would give a brief description when help is run on it, and perhaps tell you to run it as as "toolbox" from the command line to get a list of functions (where toolbox.m could be essentially generic with the exception of the description).In the end this is properly a good solution, the problem is that this solution is very static. If the toolbox uses function F from package P and P is updated with a change in F, then the toolbox would have to be updated as well to reflect this change.
/Søren
Symlinks may interfere with octave's function finding routines (i.e. there would be two locations in the directory tree where the same file is located), so simply having each package drop a file into the toolkit directory may work.Bill
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |