OF packages using Matlab-compatible code (was "pending dataframe-1.2.0 release")

[Colin Macdonald]

On 2017-08-20 08:32 AM, Oliver Heimlich wrote:
> IMO, a package should be allowed to maintain Matlab compatibility.  In
> the end this can only be beneficial to the end user at a low cost.

I agree.  In addition to Doctest which was already mentioned, Symbolic 
also tries to use Matlab-compatible syntax.

1.  Having people run it on Matlab has caught some bugs that I otherwise 
might not have found.

2.  We might uncover and fix incompatibilities in core Octave.  This has 
happened with Doctest (the implementation of "evalc" for example).

3.  Its not inconceivable that a Matlab user might choose an 
Octave-Forge package and thus be drawn towards software freedom.

The situation is perhaps analogous to porting Free Software to 
proprietary operating systems.  I think this is widely viewed as an 
ethically-sound activity (I thought there was a better reference but for 
now I found a list of [Free Software for Windows, hosted by 
FSF](https://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.en.html)).

Overall, I think this is a decision best left to package authors and 
maintainers.

best,
Colin