[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?
From: |
Sergei Steshenko |
Subject: |
Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ? |
Date: |
Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:38:40 -0700 (PDT) |
--- On Fri, 8/5/11, PhilipNienhuis <address@hidden> wrote:
> From: PhilipNienhuis <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?
> To: address@hidden
> Date: Friday, August 5, 2011, 10:41 AM
>
> Sergei Steshenko-2 wrote:
> >
> > --- On Fri, 8/5/11, Martin.Hepperle <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Martin.Hepperle <address@hidden>
> >> Subject: Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?
> >> To: address@hidden
> >> Date: Friday, August 5, 2011, 5:13 AM
> >> Hmmm...this is what I get under
> >> Windows ("official" MINGW binary):
> >>
> >> octave-3.2.4.exe:53> foo
> >> foo =
> >>
> >> {
> >> [1,1] = a
> >> [1,2] = ab
> >> [1,3] = abc
> >> [1,4] =
> >>
> >> 1 2 3
> >> 4
> >> 5 6 7
> >> 8
> >>
> >> 9 10 11 12
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> octave-3.2.4.exe:54> numel(foo)
> >> ans = 4
> >> octave-3.2.4.exe:55> numel(foo{:})
> >> error: Invalid call to numel. Correct usage is:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Please note that:
> >
> > 1) you are using version 3.2.4 while I am using 3.4.2,
> i.e. mine is later;
> > 2) I run Linux while you Windows.
> >
> > Anyway, I think 2) is irrelevant is this case, i.e. I
> think it's a
> > regression in 3.4.2 rather than Linux <->
> Windows issue.
> >
>
> On Windows, using Tatsuro's 3.4.2. binary, it goes like
> this:
>
>
> GNU Octave, version 3.4.2
> Copyright (C) 2011 John W. Eaton and others.
> This is free software; see the source code for copying
> conditions.
> There is ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; not even for
> MERCHANTABILITY or
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. For details, type
> `warranty'.
> :
> Octave was configured for "i686-pc-mingw32".
> :
> <snip>
>
> octave.exe:1> foo = {'a'}
> foo =
> {
> [1,1] = a
> }
> octave.exe:2> foo{2} = 'bc'
> foo =
> {
> [1,1] = a
> [1,2] = bc
> }
> octave.exe:3> foo{3} = 'bcd'
> foo =
> {
> [1,1] = a
> [1,2] = bc
> [1,3] = bcd
> }
> octave.exe:4> foo{4} = rand(4,4)
> foo =
> {
> [1,1] = a
> [1,2] = bc
> [1,3] = bcd
> [1,4] =
>
>
> 0.946214 0.483896 0.964641 0.845847
>
> 0.066998 0.897528 0.972649 0.099501
>
> 0.423324 0.309595 0.964653 0.515342
>
> 0.401630 0.106199 0.283850 0.831350
>
> }
> octave.exe:5> numel (foo)
> ans = 4
>
> ## What I expected
> octave.exe:6> numel(foo{:})
> ans = 96
>
> ## Hmmm.....
> octave.exe:7>
>
> Go figure....
>
> Philip
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/numel-foo-feature-or-bug-tp3720972p3721796.html
> Sent from the Octave - General mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
>
Thanks for the update.
I rechecked the thread, and if I am not mistaken, in my case it is:
"
octave:5> foo{4} = [1 2 3 4; 5 6 7 8; 9 10 11 12]
foo =
{
[1,1] = a
[1,2] = ab
[1,3] = abc
[1,4] =
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
}
octave:6> numel(foo{:})
ans = 72
",
while in your case it is:
"
octave.exe:6> numel(foo{:})
ans = 96 ## Hmmm.....
".
I.e. for the same input data we have different results (72 <-> 96).
Again, if I'm not mistaken in all these observations, could you please
reopen the http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?33954 bug ?
Thanks,
Sergei.
- numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Sergei Steshenko, 2011/08/05
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Martin.Hepperle, 2011/08/05
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Sergei Steshenko, 2011/08/05
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Sergei Steshenko, 2011/08/05
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, PhilipNienhuis, 2011/08/05
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?,
Sergei Steshenko <=
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Ben Abbott, 2011/08/06
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, John W. Eaton, 2011/08/06
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Ben Abbott, 2011/08/06
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2011/08/06
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Ben Abbott, 2011/08/06
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Marco atzeri, 2011/08/07
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, John W. Eaton, 2011/08/07
- Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Marco atzeri, 2011/08/07
Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Sergei Steshenko, 2011/08/05
Re: numel(foo{:}) - feature or bug ?, Ben Abbott, 2011/08/05