Re: [Gretl-users] Possible redundancy of some function packages?

> Em 5 de novembro de 2005, Allin escreveu: > > (...) > > I won't go into all the specifics -- although I think you're right > -- but rather I'll address the general issue here. > > We could really do with some editoral control over the function > packages. Up till now we have been totally "laissez faire", but if > the packages on the server are supposed to be a showcase for adding > to gretl's built-in functionality they need to be pruned and > consolidated. I wonder if we could assemble a committee of 2 or 3 > members to work on this. > > > I would like to be one of them. I really like to test that kind of stuff :-) Great! > > One other thought: some of the current packages that are strictly > redundant might nonetheless be preserved in some form as nice > examples of scripting. For example, Claudia Pigini's > "clustered_ols". Maybe there should be an "example scripts" area > separate from the function package area? > > > Dear Allin, I think the introduction of an "example scripts" area is a > very good idea. We could place it inside the "Tools" menu naming it with > something like "Examples and books/articles replications". We already have quite a few example scripts under Data/Scripts/Exercise files (re-translated from German right now). And in principle maybe it's not a bad idea that users cannot upload stuff there on their own, when we're talking about _examples_ that should at least work.

So AFAICS the change would be to transform the concerned packages back into pure scripts and move them to the examples/exercise location.