Octave Workshop 0.8

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Octave Workshop 0.8

Sebastien Loisel
I just released a new version of Octave Workshop. The new feature is that I've indexed the standard GNU Octave documentation and made it available integrally in the help system of Octave Workshop.

Aside from http://www.octave.org/doc/index.html, is there anything else that should be included in the help menu?

Note that I'm including an html version of the manual, because I noticed that this wasn't installed on my RHEL4 version of octave, and it would make my life more complicated to conditionally compile it depending on whether or not I find it.

You can get it at the usual place: http://www.math.mcgill.ca/loisel/octave-workshop/

Cheers,

Sébastien Loisel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Stéfan van der Walt
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:21:33PM +0100, Sebastien Loisel wrote:
> I just released a new version of Octave Workshop. The new feature is that I've
> indexed the standard GNU Octave documentation and made it available integrally
> in the help system of Octave Workshop.
>
> Aside from http://www.octave.org/doc/index.html, is there anything else that
> should be included in the help menu?

Maybe the categorical index from

http://octave.sourceforge.net/index/index.html

Cheers
Stéfan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Sebastien Loisel


On 2/18/06, Stefan van der Walt <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:21:33PM +0100, Sebastien Loisel wrote:
> I just released a new version of Octave Workshop. The new feature is that I've
> indexed the standard GNU Octave documentation and made it available integrally
> in the help system of Octave Workshop.
>
> Aside from http://www.octave.org/doc/index.html, is there anything else that
> should be included in the help menu?

Maybe the categorical index from

http://octave.sourceforge.net/index/index.html

That's a good idea. Can I rely on the overall HTML structure of these pages to not change much over time?

For instance, I currently generate a help index by parsing just <a name="toc..."> and <blockquote> tags from octave_toc.html. The octave forge index is less nice, but I could parse all nav*.html files and build an index from there (I don't think the help viewer understands html frames.)

But if the html is liable to change over time, maybe this isn't the right way?

Cheers,

Sébastien Loisel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Stéfan van der Walt
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:59:07PM +0100, Sebastien Loisel wrote:

>
>
> On 2/18/06, Stefan van der Walt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     Maybe the categorical index from
>
>     http://octave.sourceforge.net/index/index.html
>
>
> That's a good idea. Can I rely on the overall HTML structure of these pages to
> not change much over time?

The HTML is auto-generated by a Perl script (look in the admin directory),
so it is unlikely that the structure will ever change.  However, it
might be safer to make a copy of the script and change it to generate
XML or HTML in a format you prefer.  I also have a Python script that
does the same, if that would help.

Regards
Stéfan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Sebastien Loisel
The HTML is auto-generated by a Perl script (look in the admin directory),
so it is unlikely that the structure will ever change.  However, it
might be safer to make a copy of the script and change it to generate
XML or HTML in a format you prefer.  I also have a Python script that
does the same, if that would help.

OK, if it's not likely to change, I'm going to keep it the way it is now until it breaks and then we'll see. I've also updated the 0.8 tarball with your idea, now the documentation includes the Octave Forge documentation.

Most of it is still unsearchable, but I'll fix that some other time.

A side effect is that the tarball is like five times bigger than previously, harrumph.

Sébastien Loisel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Stéfan van der Walt
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 03:07:39PM +0100, Sebastien Loisel wrote:
> OK, if it's not likely to change, I'm going to keep it the way it is now until
> it breaks and then we'll see. I've also updated the 0.8 tarball with your idea,
> now the documentation includes the Octave Forge documentation.
>
> Most of it is still unsearchable, but I'll fix that some other time.
>
> A side effect is that the tarball is like five times bigger than previously,
> harrumph.

Simply because of the added HTML files?

S.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Sebastien Loisel
> A side effect is that the tarball is like five times bigger than previously,
> harrumph.

Simply because of the added HTML files?

Yes. It went from about 250KB to 1.3MB.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Stéfan van der Walt
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 03:52:59PM +0100, Sebastien Loisel wrote:
>     > A side effect is that the tarball is like five times bigger than
>     previously,
>     > harrumph.
>
>     Simply because of the added HTML files?
>
>
> Yes. It went from about 250KB to 1.3MB.

Wow, I see now that those files total 9.9Mb.  Maybe we should include
only the category lists, and not the docstrings for every function
(those can, after all, be obtained from Octave).

Stéfan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

John W. Eaton-6
On 18-Feb-2006, Stefan van der Walt wrote:

| Wow, I see now that those files total 9.9Mb.

Which files are that large.  Is it due to content or verbose markup?

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Stéfan van der Walt
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:06:12PM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 18-Feb-2006, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
>
> | Wow, I see now that those files total 9.9Mb.
>
> Which files are that large.  Is it due to content or verbose markup?

Looks like there are roughly 2000 files, each describing the docstring
of a different function.  Each file is a minimum of 4K (header,
docstring and footer).  It might be better to combine those into one
file (for the purpose of Octave Workshop, not the webpage).

Stéfan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Sebastien Loisel
docstring and footer).  It might be better to combine those into one
file (for the purpose of Octave Workshop, not the webpage).

This won't significantly reduce the size of the tarball, and it might make the help system "less nice" (I think in the help it should be one help page per function, ergo one file per function). As David says, hard disk space is cheap.

Sébastien Loisel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

Stéfan van der Walt
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 12:22:57AM +0100, Sebastien Loisel wrote:
>     docstring and footer).  It might be better to combine those into one
>     file (for the purpose of Octave Workshop, not the webpage).
>
>
> This won't significantly reduce the size of the tarball, and it might make the
> help system "less nice" (I think in the help it should be one help page per
> function, ergo one file per function). As David says, hard disk
space is cheap.

Sure, but (around here) bandwidth isn't :)

Either way, 1.5Mb isn't a problem (unless it can be avoided easily).
Frankly, I do not see the use of including the docstrings separately
in a GUI, where you can just as easily type "help function" for an up
to date docstring.

Even better would be a shorthand like in ipython:

?function

Cheers
Stéfan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

William Poetra Yoga H-2
On 2/19/06, Stefan van der Walt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sure, but (around here) bandwidth isn't :)
>

Luckily I'm back in Beijing where bandwidth is cheap ;)

> Either way, 1.5Mb isn't a problem (unless it can be avoided easily).
> Frankly, I do not see the use of including the docstrings separately
> in a GUI, where you can just as easily type "help function" for an up
> to date docstring.
>
> Even better would be a shorthand like in ipython:
>
> ?function
>

I think it would be better if we could extract the raw docstrings in
texinfo form (using some of 'help' code, maybe, or extend 'help' to
output the raw docstring?), and then generate the HTML on the fly.
This will preserve the formatting.

--
William Poetra Yoga Hadisoeseno

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave Workshop 0.8

John W. Eaton-6
On 19-Feb-2006, William Poetra Yoga Hadisoeseno wrote:

| I think it would be better if we could extract the raw docstrings in
| texinfo form (using some of 'help' code, maybe, or extend 'help' to
| output the raw docstring?), and then generate the HTML on the fly.
| This will preserve the formatting.

Yes.  I'm assuming that the HTML that was added to the distribution was
generated from the Texinfo docstrings.  Is that correct?  Is the
Texinfo source significantly smaller than the generated HTML?  If so,
then I think it would be much better to simply distribute that (no
need to do anything special since it should already be included with
the functions) and then generate the HTML automatically, as you
suggest.

jwe