Re: Catching up to Matlab

[John W. Eaton]

On  2-Nov-2010, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

| Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Agree.

| If (functionally equivalent to)
| Matalb documentation does not adequately/correctly describe Octave
| behavior, it's an automatic indication of an Octave bug (unless it's an
| intentional difference with Matlab), so user frustration in such cases
| will be a really good stimulus to file a bug report which would ultimately
| improve Octave quality.

If the feature does not exist in Octave, I would not call it a bug,
but rather a missing feature.

| Or, to put it shorter/simpler: it's in best Octave's interests (as long as
| Octave's official goal is to be Matlab-compatible) for users to use
| _Matlab_ documentation (and not Octave one).

Definitely disagree.  Octave should have its own documentation that
completely describes it.  The problem is a lack of volunteers to do
the work.  Or, a lack of funding, as that might make up for a lack of
volunteers.

jwe