[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Catching up to Matlab

From: Sergei Steshenko
Subject: Re: Catching up to Matlab
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 06:45:08 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Mon, 11/1/10, Judd Storrs <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Judd Storrs <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Catching up to Matlab
> To: "Sergei Steshenko" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Date: Monday, November 1, 2010, 9:00 AM
> 2010/11/1 Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>:
> > so from Octave documentation how do I at all know in
> the first place
> > that 'set' exists in Matlab ?
> Incorrect
> documentation is infinitely worse than no documentation.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. If (functionally equivalent to)
Matalb documentation does not adequately/correctly describe Octave
behavior, it's an automatic indication of an Octave bug (unless it's an
intentional difference with Matlab), so user frustration in such cases
will be a really good stimulus to file a bug report which would ultimately
improve Octave quality.

Or, to put it shorter/simpler: it's in best Octave's interests (as long as
Octave's official goal is to be Matlab-compatible) for users to use
_Matlab_ documentation (and not Octave one).



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]