[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: A kernel, multiple notebooks, and Global?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg87804] Re: A kernel, multiple notebooks, and Global?
• From: Albert Retey <awnl at arcor.net>
• Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <fu1u15$ojn$1@smc.vnet.net> <fu21b9$rap$1@smc.vnet.net> <fu4fc7$nak$1@smc.vnet.net> <fu6mhj$nni$1@smc.vnet.net>

Hi,

> Thanks for this and other replies to this query -- which generally seem 
> to say that, unless you do something to deliberately manipulate 
> contexts, a group of several simultaneously open notebooks can generally 
> be used as if they were all parts of one big notebook with one overall 
> global context.

That's true AFAIK...

> I didn't raise this question because of any problems I've encountered, 
> but rather to flush out any problems that might arise in the "packages 
 > ...

other than that I think if you feel comfortable to work the way you have 
decribed there is technically no reason to not go for it.

The advantage of packages comes in when you want/need encapsulate parts 
of your code so that different modules don't interfere. This could bite 
you if you are not careful, but you could cure that by using separate 
namespaces for them by using BeginPackage and EndPackage statements 
within your modules notebooks. This you could do without creating *.m 
files, which is probably what makes you think packages are complicated. 
Another aspect where package files make sense is when you want to give 
away code for others to use. If you don't plan to do that I don't see 
much further advantages for you to dive into packages, although they 
might be by far not as complicated as you think :-). Also it wouldn't be 
much work to convert your modules notebooks to genuine packages whenever 
you think it makes sense...


hth,

albert