[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: pkg.m status and question
From: |
Mike Miller |
Subject: |
Re: pkg.m status and question |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Jan 2020 09:33:49 -0800 |
On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 04:26:21 -0600, PhilipNienhuis wrote:
> My motive for asking is that this setup of package info makes for needlessly
> inefficient and complicated code. For each tiny action the relevant structs
> have to be unwrapped first. IMO dealing with a struct array rather than cell
> array of structs would make the code much more transparent and much more
> efficient as well.
I agree with this motivation, having seen this before too. I can't speak
to why it was originally done as a cell array of scalar structs.
I do have a speculation. The current design reads each pkg DESCRIPTION
file into a scalar struct, which is then added to a cell array of all
pkgs. A problem arises if you have pkg A which has a "Url" field in its
DESCRIPTION, and pkg B which has a "SystemRequirements" field in its
DESCRIPTION. How do you easily combine two structs with unlike fields
into a single struct array with a superset of all fields?
By way of example,
a.Name = "first";
a.Description = "A package";
a.Url = "https://www.example.org/";
b.Name = "second";
b.Description = "Another package";
b.SystemRequirements = "fftw3";
all = [a, b];
doesn't work. But the current cell array implementation does.
--
mike
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature