[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: goals for 3.1
From: |
David Bateman |
Subject: |
Re: goals for 3.1 |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:21:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080306) |
John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 20-Mar-2008, David Bateman wrote:
>
> | John W. Eaton wrote:
> | > I'm not sure about additional fucntions but in addition to working on
> | > numeric data, these functionns should also work on character, struct,
> | > and cell arrays.
> | >
> | >
> |
> | There is a compatibility issue with the triu, tril and diag functions
> | with structure arrays between Octave and Matlab. Basically Matlab
> | doesn't allow structure arrays with these functions, but Octave does..
> | However what is returned by Octave doesn't really make any sense.. Consider
> |
> | d = triu (struct ('fld',num2cell([1,2;3,4])))
> | d(2,1).fld
> |
> | The triu on the struct returns the cell (2,1) with an empty octave-value
> | and so d(2,1).fld returns nothing. This is quite a surprising and
> | probably useless feature.. Similar issues exist in tril and diag. Should
> | we keep this feature, it which case it should be documented, or should
> | we just fail for structures like Matlab does?
>
> Yes, since there is no "0" for structure arrays, probably we should
> not expect these functions to work for structs. For cell arrays, we
> could make them work if we agree that "[]" is the "0" for cells.
> I.e., given
>
> x = {1, 2, 3};
>
> the function call
>
> diag (x)
>
> would produce
>
> { 1, [], [];
> [], 2, [];
> [], [], 3 }
>
> I think this is compatible behavior.
>
> jwe
>
That is what I just implemented.. Will send a patch after I feed the
kids ...
D.
- Re: goals for 3.1, David Bateman, 2008/03/09
- Re: goals for 3.1, John W. Eaton, 2008/03/12
- Re: goals for 3.1, David Bateman, 2008/03/20
- Re: goals for 3.1, David Bateman, 2008/03/20
- Re: goals for 3.1, John W. Eaton, 2008/03/20
- Re: goals for 3.1,
David Bateman <=
- Re: goals for 3.1, David Bateman, 2008/03/20
- Re: goals for 3.1, John W. Eaton, 2008/03/20
- Re: goals for 3.1, David Bateman, 2008/03/20
- Re: goals for 3.1, John W. Eaton, 2008/03/21