[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: demo syntax and using dump_demos to compare to ML
From: |
Søren Hauberg |
Subject: |
Re: demo syntax and using dump_demos to compare to ML |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:38:59 +0100 |
søn, 22 01 2012 kl. 14:29 -0500, skrev Ben Abbott:
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
>
> > søn, 22 01 2012 kl. 14:02 -0500, skrev Ben Abbott:
> >
> >> After that I'd like to add these to the sources. I'm thinking these
> >> can be added to scripts/test, but an not sure if they should be listed
> >> in module.mk. I've cc'd Soren, Jordi, and John in case they would like
> >> to comment before I do something that may need to be undone.
> >>
> >> Thoughts / Suggestions ?
> >
> > Glad to see this being put to use; I think it's a good way to test the
> > plotting system.
> >
> > I seem to remember that the dump_demos script had some ad hoc rules for
> > converting from Octave syntax to something Matlab compatible. I think
> > this is something we need to be very careful about, so if that code
> > still exists I would consider removing it.
> >
> > Søren
>
>
> The dump_demos.m script does include a simplisitc oct2mat() function.
>
> function code = oct2mat (code)
> ## Simple hacks to make things Matlab compatible
> code = strrep (code, "%!", "%%");
> code = strrep (code, "!", "~");
> code = strrep (code, "\"", "'");
> code = strrep (code, "#", "%");
> ## Fix the format specs for the errobar demos
> code = strrep (code, "%r", "#r");
> code = strrep (code, "%~", "#~");
> code = strrep (code, "assert", "assert4demos");
> endkeywords = {"endfor", "endif", "endwhile", "end_try_catch",
> "endfunction"};
> for k = 1:numel (endkeywords)
> in = endkeywords {k};
> out = in; out (4:end) = " ";
> code = strrep (code, in, out);
> endfor
> commentkeywords = {"unwind_proect"};
> for k = 1:numel (commentkeywords)
> code = strrep (code, commentkeywords{k}, strcat ("%",
> commentkeywords{k}));
> endfor
> endfunction
>
> Are you implying there may be a legal liability related to this ? Or,
> something else ?
No I am just thinking that this type of code will easily break, so I
would be afraid of depending upon it.
Søren