|
From: | Michael D Godfrey |
Subject: | Re: No isimag() curioso |
Date: | Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:52:21 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0 |
On 09/08/2012 05:33 PM, Daniel J Sebald
wrote:
How do others feel about deprecating "iscomplex()" if it simply is the complement of "isreal()"?Dan, Just a brief answer to all you comments. It seems to me that the current state has just evolved from various forces. It is not either consistent nor likely to be clear to most users. Maybe its only good feature is that it is not obviously in direct conflict with Matlab. However, I think that any single change, without carefully thinking through all the issues, is likely to do as much harm as good. One thing that you said should be followed up: a clearer description of the current state should go somewhere in the Manual. And, this may just add to the noise, but a few days ago I created a vector which was composed of complex elements, and some "real" elements, i.e. isreal(x(4)) said 1 and whos x(4) said it was only 8 bytes. But, the vector was complex and whos x showed it as composed of 16 byte complex elements. Just another bit of schizophrenia. Since I have not been able to reproduce this I have not been able to try it on Matlab. I do think that creating an isimag() and at least deprecating iscomplex() is a good idea. However, someone with at least a day or two of time should go through this carefully and propose a good set of actions. Michael |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |