>
>
>>2). Later MAXIMA package must be split on smaller
>>packages to make Maxima core clean and modular.
>>Ceratanly this is very serious and complicated undertaking
>>which requires deep understanding of Maxima core and
>>we are not ready to do this now. But in my opinion
>>eventually we have do such Maxima core modularization.
>
>
> Uh - I'm not qualified to comment on this one, although
> I will say modular sounds good :-). One concern - if
> we do split up MAXIMA into lots of modular packages, how
> will kill work? Will it maintain a database of packages
> not to kill?
>
>
>>3). Maxima desperately needs user-level package system.
>>In particular each package in SHARE must form separate
>>user package with clean interface. Internally Maxima
>>user-level packages may be implemented with the help
>>of CL packages. Certainly, this is also not highest
>>priority task.
>
>
> Um - so rather than have loaded share stuff go into MAXIMA-USER
> you want to define a new user package for each share file
> loaded?
>
Well, maybe not for all packages but generally yes.
Internals of the package FOO should go into separate
package (something like MAXIMA-PACKAGE-FOO) and only
_interface_ part of the package is exported into MAXIMA-USER.
>
> Personally I think we should wait on that until we have
> straightened up the share packages, and then put them
> all in at once. What benefits do you see from compiling some
> of them?
>
Probably you are right. In any case revising share
packages is one of primary goals.
--
Vadim V. Zhytnikov
<vvzhy@mail.ru>
<vvzhy@netorn.ru>