Am 06.11.2014 um 14:40 schrieb Henrique Andrade:
> 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.