[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]

From: Paul Kienzle
Subject: Re: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:23:31 -0500

On Feb 24, 2005, at 4:31 AM, David Bateman wrote:

Paul Kienzle wrote:

The problem with oct-files is that they are more difficult to maintain.
Usually they have more code, and fewer people in our user base are
comfortable debugging them.

Personally, I would like to see most argument type checking and conversion
going on in m-files, and have a light foreign function interface that
can directly call C code with dense vectors. That keeps the C easy and
allows octave to be fast.

- Paul

Unfortunately, in the case I show th etype checking for arbitrary user types can't be done since the current assumption of have retval=zeros(nr,nc), and then filling it in with assignments makes the assumption that there is an assignment defined for octave_matrix to an arbitrary type. This is not the case, the only other way to treat this is if something like "retval=x([])(1:nr,1:nc)" could be made to convert the input matrix x to a zero size matrix then the second indexing be made to do a resize_and_fill to the right size find with zeros of the correct type. The alternative is that the zeros function could be adapted so that "zeros(nr,nc,x)" would return a zero sized matrix of the same type as x, the question is then is "zeros(2,2,2)" interpreted as a 3-D matrix of zeros or a 2-D matrix of the same type as "2"......

zeros(m,n,"typename"), or in the triu case, zeros(m,n,class(X)).

This avoids the ambiguity and bonus it is already implemented.

- Paul

reply via email to

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