[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Octave compared to Matlab
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: Octave compared to Matlab |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:38:00 -0500 (CDT) |
On 14-Aug-1998, Mario Storti <address@hidden> wrote:
| (From the Octave manual: File: octave.info, Node: Function Files)
| > If you know that your own function files will not change while you
| > are running Octave, you can improve performance by setting the variable
| > `ignore_function_time_stamp' to `"all"', so that Octave will ignore the
| > time stamps for all function files. Setting it to `"system"' gives the
| > default behavior. If you set it to anything else, Octave will check
| > the time stamps on all function files.
|
| I never used it. I think that it should be used with care. Perhaps
| inside some construct try-catch-end_try_catch (see the command try).
Temporarily resetting built-in variables should be done inside
unwind_protect blocks, like this:
old_value = built_in_variable;
unwind_protect
built_in_variable = "new-value";
... code that depends on special built-in variable setting here ...
unwind_protect_cleanup
built_in_variable = old_value;
end_unwind_protect
This way, the value of the built-in variable will be reset no matter
how control exits the block (normal execution, error, or interrupt).
The problem is that you may have to be careful if you reset a built-in
variable and then call another function, because the functions you
call may not be written so that they will work correctly no matter
what the values of the built-in variables are.
(I originally thought that controlling Octave's behavior with various
built-in variables was a good idea. Now I'm not so sure...)
jwe
Re: Octave compared to Matlab,
John W. Eaton <=