[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Too many arguments?
From: |
Olaf Till |
Subject: |
Re: Too many arguments? |
Date: |
Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:59:51 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:10:55PM +0200, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> 3. Most, if not all, functions already include checks for nargin, so
> giving excess arguments generates an error anyway; however, you'd take
It was not addressed to me, but let me throw in that I had simply
overlooked that. This argument shows that changing the interface to a
user function with an extra variable would not be, as I thought, a
clean solution, even if Octave kept allowing extra variables in the
future. So my argument (other branch of this thread) for keeping
Octaves behavior gets invalid. Sorry, should have thought of this
before.
Olaf
- Re: Too many arguments?, (continued)
- Re: Too many arguments?, Olaf Till, 2009/08/04
- Re: Too many arguments?, Carlo de Falco, 2009/08/04
- Re: Too many arguments?, Carlo de Falco, 2009/08/04
- Re: Too many arguments?, Olaf Till, 2009/08/05
- Re: Too many arguments?, John W. Eaton, 2009/08/05
- Re: Too many arguments?, Olaf Till, 2009/08/06
- Re: Too many arguments?, Carlo de Falco, 2009/08/06
- Re: Too many arguments?, Olaf Till, 2009/08/06
- Re: Too many arguments?, Michael Martins, 2009/08/06
- Re: Too many arguments?, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/08/06
- Re: Too many arguments?,
Olaf Till <=
- Re: Too many arguments?, John W. Eaton, 2009/08/06