[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: determining number of matrices passed to function

**From**: |
Przemek Klosowski |

**Subject**: |
Re: determining number of matrices passed to function |

**Date**: |
Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:43:09 -0600 |

I make fairly frequent use of what MATLAB knows as 'cell arrays'. For
example, suppose I have 2 matrices: A and B. I can put them into a cell
array (called MAT) using
MAT={A;B};
I can then pass MAT to a function, where I can use the length command to
determine the number of matrices in the cell array. In this example,
length(MAT) yields 2.
However, this doesn't seem to work in Octave. If I try
Yeah, cell support in Octave is weak. Octave has lists that do basically
the same.
octave:6> a=[1 2 ; 3 45]; b=[1 2 ; 3 99]; c=[1 2 ; 3 4];
octave:7> d=list (a,b,c)
d = (
[1] = ...
[2] = ...
[3] = ...
)
octave:8> length(d)
ans = 3
octave:9> nth(d,1)
ans =
1 2
3 45
One thing that lists don't do that Matlab cells do is that you
can apparently wrap multiple arguments into a cell, transparently,
i.e. in matlab fun(a,b,c) is equivalent to d={a,b,c}, fun(d).
I'd actually prefer passing arguments via structures, like so:
function t=fff(x,y,z);t=x*y*z;endfunction
arg.x= <some array>; arg.y=<other array>; arg.z=1;
fff(arg)
For this to be really nice, one would need anonymous arrays in
octave, a la Perl's initialization:
fff( (x => 5; y => [12,10]; z => 1) )
i.e. the formal arguments are passed in structure members with a
corresponding name. The advantage over Matlab's way would be
positional/order independence. What do people think about this?

[Prev in Thread] |
**Current Thread** |
[Next in Thread] |

**Re: determining number of matrices passed to function**,
*Przemek Klosowski* **<=**