🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul24.113320.8898@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jarney@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jonathan arney) writes:
>    I am writing them to be used like normal DOS or UNIX command-line commands.
>  Why?  Because I want this package to be portable and GUI's are harder to 
>  port.

I've had some experience with using/building packages like this.  Basically,
there are two flavors: program-oriented and code libraries.  The first,
like yours, uses individual programs that each perform a function.  The
second provides a set of program-callable routines, again each performing
a single function.  Each type has its advocates.  Personally, I like both.
Programs, especially with a scripting capability, are great for simple
tasks and rapid prototyping.  Libraries are better if you really want to
have reusable code components, but you can't just pull one routine off
the shelf and run it by itself.

My own feeling is that the best way to design this package is to build
a library of code and wrap minimal program support around each one to 
create the command-line callable programs.  Each program is basically
nothing but opening files and calling the corresponding routine(s) from
the library.  Keep the parameters consistent between the two, and you 
have a versatile system that allows you to switch easily between the two.  
For example, 

   ADD infile1 infile2 outfile

and

   void Add(Image im1, Image im2, Image out)

I know you were looking for suggestions as to what to put in the package,
but a good design is the best starting point.  

-- 
Bryan Morse                University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
morse@cs.unc.edu           Department of Computer Science