Re: accumarray

[etienne]

On Mon, July 2, 2007 12:31, David Bateman wrote:
# address@hidden wrote:
#>   Hi David,
#>
#> On Sat, June 30, 2007 16:00, David Bateman wrote:
#> # I have no idea if the attached function is really useful, but it is a
#>
#> it would be useful at least for me. I would have adopted if it had been 
around when
#> I first wrote a similar function "result = loop_add (add_to_what, add_where, 
add_what)".
#>
#>   The answer to your question depends more on users than maintainers, 
doesn't it?
#
# Yes, but maintainers are also users as well :-) .... In any case the
# main issue I see is that this isn't a builtin version and so might be
# limited in speed relative to the matlab version. Though if it is
# adequate I see no reason to write it as an oct-file. In any case if it
# does need to be written as an Octave file, having a good m-file version
# that is consistent with the matlab version is a good first step.
#
# Unfortunately I'm traveling at the moment and can not test this code
# against matlab for speed. Frankly if its less that a factor of 5 slower
# than matlab I see no reason to write it as an oct-file..

  I would say that correct but slow code is better than no code at all.

  Cheers,

  Etienne

# Cheers
# David
#
#
#
#>
#>   Cheers,
#>
#>   Etienne
#>
#> # Matlab core function. I saw it as a request on the Wiki and thought it
#> # would be fairly trivial to implement a version of it.
#> #
#> # Matlab has this as a builtin function, so I'm sure that Matlab is
#> # significantly faster for its version of this function. Thought I'd tried
#> # to keep the code vectorized as much as I could. Include this function in
#> # the CVS Jon if you want it..
#> #
#> # Cheers
#> # David
#> #
#>
#>
#
#


-- 
http://www.isr.ist.utl.pt/~etienne