Re: File extensions in __list_functions__

[Rik]

> Finally, is there currently a way to list all the visible function
> names with a single function call?  I think that could be useful thing
> to have.
>
>   
This is useful to me, although I can get by with having it split into
three functions as well.  Basically, I have been wanting to see which
functions are undocumented.  Knowing what Octave sees, I can now compare
it to the list of DOCSTRING references in the .txi files and figure out
what hasn't been covered.  We already have something similar for test
cases.  If you run 'make check' there is a report on which functions are
without test coverage which is a useful guide on where to focus effort.

--Rik