[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: effin' compatibility

From: Andy Adler
Subject: Re: effin' compatibility
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:39:21 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Paul Kienzle wrote:

> Maybe we can introduce the notion of namespaces to sort this out?
> Something like "namespace octave2" means that all subsequent
> function lookups for the remainder of the current context
> are done in the octave2 namespace.
> This is too much work for this case alone, but this is a
> recurring problem, so a general solution would be nice.  There
> are a lot of details to work out about the syntax an semantics
> of namespaces so it wouldn't be a quick fix.

  I would love octave to have namespace support.

  I would love octave to have namespaces compatible with matlab
     OO classes.

  I would love it if matlab OO syntax didn't suck.

So the catch is that compatible object syntax would
introduce suckiness into octave. Does anyone have ideas
around this one?

As far as I can tell, Matlab OO is based on Perl's mapping of
  Method Name <=> File Name. However, I detest the fact
that the syntax doesn't tell you exactly what is going on.

   For example. This is clear
      x= my_funky_variable_type( args, ...)
      y= x.inverse();  % this calls a special inverse.m

   This is not
      x= my_funky_variable_type( args, ...)
      y= inverse(x); % is this a normal, or a special inverse?


   Would it be possible to allow methods to be called in octave
   by doing
      y= x.inverse( args ) or y=x->inverse( args )
   as well as
      y= inverse(x, args)

Andy Adler <address@hidden> 1(613)562-5800x6218

reply via email to

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