Re: Wavelet Denoising toolbox.

[Peter L. Søndergaard]

On 29-05-2013 15:59, Juan Pablo Carbajal wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Peter L. Soendergaard
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On 05/29/2013 03:17 PM, Juan Pablo Carbajal wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Peter L. Soendergaard
> > > <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > Perhaps we can somehow coordinate so we avoid a duplication of efforts
> > > That sounds good, I hope you can do that.
> > >
> > > btw, it would be better if you provided a proper Octave package of
> > > your toolbox. What are the chances of doing that?
> > That depends on how much needs to be done. Some issues:
> >
> > 1) The main thing is the documentation, I cannot convert that to Octaves
> > format, too much work has gone into structuring that nicely in another
> > format (reStructuredText), and I would like to keep it in that format.
> > Currently LTFAT comes in at around 300 functions, with a 180 page manual,
> > http://ltfat.sourceforge.net/doc/ltfat.pdf
> >
> > 2) LTFAT is itself structured into directories, so it is already a
> > collection of small "packages".
> >
> > 3) LTFAT is hosted on Sourceforge it a Git repository, and I would like it
> > to stay there, as I can easily control who has write access, for instance if
> > a ph.d. student needs to submit or cleanup a few files.
> >
> > If we can just create a package specification file that installs the whole
> > toolbox, it would probably be doable, but I don't know if that is acceptable
> > for Octave forge, or if LTFAT becomes to "alien" compared to the rest of the
> > website.
> >
> > I might be able to create a script that converts reStructuredText to
> > texinfo. Does texinfo supports Latex formulas, images and citations? If so,
> > I can convert the TeX output. If not, I can convert the text output.
> >
> > btw.: We will be at the OctConf (just not registered yet).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Peter.
> Great, we can discuss more details in the Conference then.
> I would worry the least about the documentation. Of course that could
> be a long term issue but I see no point, given that there is a manual,
> on investing time on just changing the its format.
>
> What would be really cool is to give the package the PKG_* scripts,
> NEWS and DESCRIPTION files needed by pkg to install the package
> directly form the Octave prompt. This will also open the door of
> Debian to LTFAT. We should try to see how much work does this imply.
> The only issue I can foresee is the heavy mex dependence (Do you know
> this could be interfaced naturally with Octave, without the need to go
> through mex?).
> The rest seems like the work of an afternoon, but I tend to be over
> optimistic on these matters.
We already have .oct interfaces for everything, so there is no mex 
issue. Internally, the LTFAT C code use the same convention for complex 
numbers , so the Octave interfaces are cleaner and more efficient than 
the Matlab interfaces.

We have a simple build system just using several different makefiles, 
have a look here:

http://sourceforge.net/p/ltfat/code/ci/master/tree/

The Octave interfaces are in /oct
The Makefile for the C backend is src/Makefile_unix
The Makefile for the oct interfaces is oct/Makefile_unix

There are also mingw makefiles for Windows 64 bit and mac makefiles for 
max 64 bit.

Cheers,
Peter.