James Amundson wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> The two most important parts of the 5.9.0 release will be the new build
> system and the moving/renaming of files. The former is basically
> complete. I have run into a snag with the latter, however. I could
> really use some help.
>
> My problem is with the shared code. Right now it exists in the
> directories share, share1, share2, sharem, sym and tensor. (Is there any
> I missed?) The distinction between the shareX directories is arbitrary
> as far as I can tell. I count no less than 62 different file extensions
> in them. I sat down to attempt to standardize the file extensions
> according to the proposal Vadim made quite a while ago:
>
> > It is good idea to standardize this better
> > and reduce the number of file extensions to, say,
> > .mac .lisp .usg .mac .dem.
>
> When I looked closer I found that this is a highly nontrivial task. Even
> within the 62 file extensions, the usage is not consistent. For example
> some .mc files are maxima batch files (which I would rename to .mac) and
> some are lisp files (which I would rename to .lisp). Clearly, it is
> going to be a big job to sort these out.
>
> Here are the points on which I need help:
>
> 1) Someone needs to go through and figure out a mapping from the old
> file names to new file names with consistent endings. It will be
> tedious.
>
I think we have to work out some well defined list of file types
with unique (recommended) extension for each type. When we
achieve consensus about such a list it must be included in
documentation and Readme for reference.
Renaming concrete files to the new scheme it is another story.
It seems that it can't be performed automatically since at present
names are quite inconsistent. So we have to go and rename
each file individually.
I also started examining all these share files to make some
more concrete proposals but unfortunately I have _very_
limited spare time till the end of January.
But I'll try to do my best.
>
> 2) Unless someone has a better suggestion, I would propose to put
> combine all the share-like directories in to one directory called
> "share". "sym" and "tensor" would become subdirectories of "share". I'm
> not terribly happy about this, but I don't have a better idea. Please
> either come up with a better idea, or convince me that this idea is good
> enough.
>
> 3) I have no idea what fraction of the packages in the share directories
> are working, used, or even useful. Any input in this would be
> appreciated.
>
As for directory structure I think that one share directory with sub
directories
/share
/algebra
/matrix
/graphics
/ode
....
is the most logical way to arrange things. It is very convenient
from the user's point of view and libraries in Maple and
Mathematica are arranged in similar fashion.
Subdivision of the style "tested/working/nonworking" seems to
me less important. Some packages may work on maxima+gcl
but fail on other lisps. But simple Maxima patches will
change their status. Some packages must be
used as source to work properly but it seems that there
are also others which must be compiled. Finally I
guess there are lot of packages which require just
few lines of change to make them work.
>
> Really, any help on the share file problem will be appreciated.
>
> --Jim
>
> P.S. I'm about to go out of email contact for about a week and a half.
> I'll try to at least look at the email archives in my absence.
>
> P.P.S. I have the testing suite incorporated into the new build system.
> Nearly all tests were working until the minute I was about to commit
> them. (Shoot me now.) I will commit them after I return.
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima@www.math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
Maybe it is good idea to bring all share files to consistent
(lower) case together with renaming. But maybe it is too
much for now.
--
[ Vadim V. Zhytnikov <vvzhy@mail.ru> <vvzhy@td.lpi.ac.ru> ]