[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Re: Best practice for Mathematica package development
To elaborate a little more, some of the other particular topics (aside from those mentioned in my original post) for which I am interested in best practises are: * layout of .m files in package directories, and why; * testing (use Eclipse's built-in testing stuff? a separate Mathematica notebook? why?); * uniqueness of exported symbol names (i.e., has this old question been resolved satisfactorily yet: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_thread/thread/542199191f36b8cf/a2aa723ea0dee61c?lnk=gst&q=moylan+usage&rnum=1#a2aa723ea0dee61c); * long function definitions with (*comments*) inside them versus many smaller function definitions with (*comments*) between them; and * standards for features new to Mathematica 6, like syntax colouring. On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Andrew Moylan <andrew.j.moy... at gmail.com> wrote: > What are the best standards and practices to follow when developing > serious Mathematica packages that are intended for many people to use? > Is there a handy guide, and/or template .m files, that can be used by > prospective package developers? > > In the past I have made packages by allowing Mathematica to > automatically generate .m files from a notebook containing the > relevant definitions in initialization cells. With the advent of > Workbench, I assume this is no longer the best method. > > I am interested in best practices related to managing options, > contexts, warnings and errors, interfaces in general, etc. Is there a > list of standards adhered to when WRI designs packages? > > Of course I can often see how others have designed packages by reading > the .m files in their packages. Are all well-known packages as well- > designed as each another? Can anyone recommend a particular package as > a good example of how to write packages well?