Re: Choosing a sensible name for a new package split from octave3.0
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> octave3.0-mscripts (although, there will be other files than *.m in
Why not just octave3.0-scripts? (note the missing 'm').
It would make more sense than a -data or -common package to me as it really
describes the content.
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.