Re: Octave 3.0

[Ole Jacob Hagen]

Hi. 

As you might already know I'm making a new graphics handler to Octave. 
It can be found at http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oplot. 

The feature of Oplot++, will satisfy the features mentioned in "Graphics and 
GUIs with Matlab" 2. edition. 
This is a very ambitious project, but it's very rewarding to make it. 
I've started a week ago, and I will try to get some functions to be ready medio 
March (12.-14. March). 

My project is a part of the Zherlock project, and is a serious project. My 
developing will not suddenly stop as e.g kmatplot and goctave did. 
We are actually trying to get more people to help on my valuable work.

Comments?

Cheers, 

Ole 




On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:47:55 -0600
"John W. Eaton" <address@hidden> wrote:

> I'd like to try to come up with a list of must-have items for the next
> major release of Octave, then we can start making sure that all those
> items are done (not necessarily complete, but at least implemented
> well enough to be usable).
> 
> My current top 10 list is, more or less in order of importance:
> 
>   * some support for MPI
> 
>   * N-dimensional arrays
> 
>   * sparse matrices
> 
>   * clean up the load-save mess
> 
>   * extend cell arrays, struct arrays, and function handles to also be
>     N-dimensional
> 
>   * finish implementation of cell arrays and struct arrays:
>       -- cell(idx) = [] to delete elements
>       -- a(1).x = 1; a(2).x = 2; a.x => c.s. list, [a.x] => num array
>       -- allow [x{:}] = f (...) to work
>       -- and other little details like this...
> 
>   * [ ... ] should concatenate array-like objects other than matrices
> 
>   * inline functions
> 
>   * private functions
> 
>   * bring the manual up to date
> 
> 
> Yes, this is a relatively large list, but I think it is possible to do
> most of these things in the next six months or so.
> 
> It will probably help Octave a lot to have all of these things in a
> new "stable"[2] release.  Perhaps that can happen by sometime this
> coming (northern) summer (that would only be about a year later than I
> had hoped for the last time I tried making a list like this).
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jwe
> 
> 
>   [1] MPI is at the top because we have some code that is almost ready
>       to be checked in.  The manual is at the bottom because I usually
>       don't like working on it unless I can focus only on the manual
>       for a few weeks.
> 
>   [2] Even if we call it "stable" I don't expect to try to do some
>       kind of split "stable" vs. "development" releases unless someone
>       steps forward to maintain the stable release.  It simply takes
>       too much effort (for me, anywya) to try to maintain two
>       branches.