[Top][All Lists]

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

[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #9958] [octave forge](mapping) gcxgc

From: Philip Nienhuis
Subject: [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #9958] [octave forge](mapping) gcxgc
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:38:39 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0

Update of patch #9958 (project octave):

                Category:                    None => Forge : new function   
                  Status:                    None => Need Info              
             Assigned to:                    None => philipnienhuis         


Follow-up Comment #1:

Thanks for this contribution. Same guy as patch #9492, patch #9634, ... ?

Function looks good, just minor style issues, but many BIST tests, good!

I checked with Matlab, and I want you to review the used formulas. With your

>> [a, b] = gcxgc (20, -5, 45, 30, 5, 15)
a =
  -28.062   28.062
b =
     0   180

while Matlab gives:

a =
   28.0620  -28.0620
b =
    4.4121 -175.5879

AFAICS the culprit is something in L.119 and up where a comment suggests
"Causes ambiguity" and an if statement screws up the otherwise correct

Also, I see no checks for identical great circle inputs (should return NaNs,
cf. the on-line Matlab help text). As far as my own spherical trig proficiency
goes (warning: rusty because long time ago!) this could be a simple comparison
of the poles of the great circles. Perhaps / probably the answer is already in
one of the intermediate results in your function.



Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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