Re: builtin vec() [was Re: Opinions ...

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Alois Schlögl <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Moreover, it might be
>>>>> a tool were the user experience (running the same code from some octave
>>>>> toolboxes) shows an advantage of Octave over Matlab because Matlab will
>>>>> have
>>>>> only an m-file implementation of vec(). Or if Mathworks is going to
>>>>> implement a builtin vec(), than Octave has been leading.
>>>>>
>>>> Er, I'm not sure, but I think Matlab has no vec() at all...?
>>>
>>> Unlike the functionality of (:) in fun(x)(:), vec.m can be easily
>>> provided
>>> to the users of Matlab.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Aha. So even Octave's current vec() implementation is better than
>> Matlab's.
>
>
> I did not say that.
>
>
> Though a built-in would of course be yet better. I'll create
>>
>> it for 10 EUR. Anyone interested? :D
>>
>>
>
>
> I'm willing to sponsor the builtin vec() function for Octave. It's not that
> I personally have an immediate need for it; its because I see the possible
> advantages in terms of compatibility and performance (i.e. user experience)
> with Octave.
>
>

Damn, and now I can't back off :D
However, I really meant it as a low hanging fruit for someone. But now
I trapped myself, so here it goes:
http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/d97165928d05

Wow, so it *can* work, then, contracts on Octave development. I guess
I didn't really believe it :)



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz