Re: Imploding pkg.m

[c.]

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.