[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
private functions/subfunctions (was: Re: difference between path / pathd
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
private functions/subfunctions (was: Re: difference between path / pathdef) |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:09:07 -0500 |
On 17-Jan-2008, Ben Abbott wrote:
| On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:46 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
|
| > Is __extractpath__ only expected to be used in pathdef? If so, why
| > not make it a subfunction of pathdef instead of having it in a
| > separate file?
|
| I was originally hoping to share the code with savepath.m.
OK. Is that possible? If so, then let's eliminate some common code.
If not, then I think __extractpath__ should be a subfunction in
pathdef.m.
Also, now that we have private functions, I think we should adopt the
following guidelines:
* Use __foo__ names for private and internal functions.
* Move shared internal functions which are not intended to ever be
called directly into private subdirectories.
* Make sure that all internal functions that are only used in a
single parent function are inserted in the parent as a
subfunction.
We will also require a little Makefile machinery to handle private
functions in the Octave sources. I can try to take a look at that.
jwe
- Re: difference between path / pathdef, (continued)
- Re: difference between path / pathdef, John W. Eaton, 2008/01/15
- Re: difference between path / pathdef, Ben Abbott, 2008/01/15
- Re: difference between path / pathdef, John W. Eaton, 2008/01/15
- Re: difference between path / pathdef, Ben Abbott, 2008/01/16
- Re: difference between path / pathdef, John W. Eaton, 2008/01/17
- Re: difference between path / pathdef, Ben Abbott, 2008/01/17
Re: difference between path / pathdef, John W. Eaton, 2008/01/17