[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Implementing categorial function
From: |
Mike Miller |
Subject: |
Re: Implementing categorial function |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:07:29 -0800 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20161104 (1.7.1) |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 20:24:37 +0000, Carnë Draug wrote:
> Actually, for categorical arrays [1] old style @class directories seems
> to be enough. No need for classdef.
Agree, there doesn't seem to be a need for any classdef, so using an old
style class would probably be safer and easier to debug at this point.
Switching the constructor to a classdef value class constructor later
would be pretty simple, if needed for features or performance. Methods
and overloaded functions in the @categorical directory should be
compatible with either class definition style.
--
mike
- Implementing categorial function, NVS Abhilash, 2016/11/20
- Re: Implementing categorial function, Mike Miller, 2016/11/20
- Re: Implementing categorial function, NVS Abhilash, 2016/11/22
- Re: Implementing categorial function, Mike Miller, 2016/11/22
- Re: Implementing categorial function, NVS Abhilash, 2016/11/23
- Re: Implementing categorial function, Mike Miller, 2016/11/23
- Re: Implementing categorial function, NVS Abhilash, 2016/11/26
- Re: Implementing categorial function, Mike Miller, 2016/11/26