On 7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
| John W. Eaton wrote:
| > On 7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
| >
| > | Better to go for a fully matlab compatible MEX ABI
| > | and fall under the same argument as distribution of MEX code as source
| > | code.. That is of course if we can't just consider that the current
| > | Octave MEX ABI isn't already separate enough from Octave and closer to
| > | matlab that it doesn't already fall under the same argument.
| >
| > What do you mean by ABI? Do you mean that we should change Octave so
| > that a MEX file built with Matlab can run in Octave?
| >
|
| ABI = Application Binary Interface
Yes, I know, but I wanted to know what you specifically meant with
regard to Octave. At what level of detail? Do you expect Octave to
be able to be able to run a MEX file compiled with (any version of)
Matlab? Do you expect Matlab to be able to run a MEX file compiled
with Octave? I'm not sure that is practical. That seems like one of
the areas where compatibility is just too much of a PITA.