[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #36732] interp1 does not check input for monotonicity

[Ben Abbott]

Follow-up Comment #39, bug #36732 (project octave):

I had inferred the "increasing" / "decreasing" values referred to the "xi"
values (i.e. interp1 (x, y, xi)).

Francesco's thought that they referred to the "x" values prior to the sorting
makes more sense.

We'll need another changeset to fix the manual, correct?

The "distinct" language troubles me since Octave has a "unique()" function. 
The use of "distinct" infers to me that it means something different than
"unique".  Is there a reason why "distinct" is being used as opposed to
"unique"?

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?36732>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/