|
From: | Rik |
Subject: | Re: liboctave capacity, length, nemel, and numel |
Date: | Thu, 21 May 2015 13:50:55 -0700 |
On 05/21/2015 12:04 PM,
address@hidden wrote:
It might be worth checking in the Sparse array implementation to make utterly certain that there is no difference between numel and capacity; it's there that I would expect to find a difference if it exists. Otherwise, I really support cleaning things up. C++ isn't meant to be an evocative language rich with nearly identical words. In English I can compliment a woman by calling her attractive, beautiful, pretty, comely, etc. It's nice to have that flexibility in the spoken language, but I'm not romancing my computer and I find it confusing that the same procedure could be called out by four different names. A minor wish is that eventually the C++ code can look close to the standard m-file syntax and that anyone who knows Octave syntax would be able to read, at least for understanding, what is happening in the C++ code. For that reason, I also would preserve numel() since it mirrors the Octave language. Also, you can use the GCC_ATTR_DEPRECATED at the end of a function, like capacity, that will eventually be removed. This produces a nice warning when code that uses it is compiled. It would certainly be a good thing to put that in place and use the warnings to weed out any instances in the core. --Rik |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |