Re: retaining interpreter when running script from command line

[E. Joshua Rigler]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 12:15, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On  3-Mar-2005, E. Joshua Rigler <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> | This option does what I *said* I wanted, but it is not what I actually
> | need ;^).  If I use --funcall, I have to find some way to pass any
> | variables I might set in FUNC back to the interpreter.  I can think of
> | no good way to do this.
> 
> Yes, after I sent my previous message, I thought that might be what you
> really wanted.
> 
> It would not be hard to add an option like
> 
>   octave --eval "arbitrary-code"
> 
> but if we do this, do we also need --funcall?
> 
> jwe


I'm not sure if the last was a rhetorical question or not, so I'll just
give my $.02 in reply.  To be honest, I have a hard time imagining why
one would want to use --funcall if no inputs can be passed in, and only
one output can be passed out.  In any case, it seems like the --eval
option would simply encompass anything --funcall could possibly do, with
additional flexibility.

If this is something you can implement easily (it's beyond my simple
understanding of Octave internals), would it be any more trouble to make
this one of the things set by default with the --traditional option? 
This would provide just one more M**lab compatibility for those who
still need it.

-EJR



-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------