|
From: | Rik |
Subject: | [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #56752] Performance slowdown from version 3.2.4 through to current dev branch |
Date: | Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:15:08 -0400 (EDT) |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko |
Follow-up Comment #25, bug #56752 (project octave): > RE comment #23, I suppose we could return a reference to a static > undefined octave_value object for out of bounds accesses in that > case, but have we needed it before now? My guess is that none of Octave core code uses this behavior and there probably are not a lot of .oct files in the wild--the behavior most likely has never been tested. I was just thinking about good programming practices and the Principle of Least Surprise. It is very surprising to me that const/non-const versions of a function would behave differently. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?56752> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |