Re: package nan warnings

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 2 August 2012 16:40, Alois Schloegl <address@hidden> wrote:
> 1) I've never stated that this core functions are "buggy" - Never.
> However, I'm saying that there is a better way to deal with NaN's
> that what these "core functions" do.

You didn't use that word, but you implied it. You obviously think that
propagating NaNs by default is an inferior method:

On 15 February 2012 05:08, Alois Schloegl <address@hidden> wrote:
> If you are tired of these nagging warnings, ask the developers of octave
> to fix it. And I do not mean turning off the warning on shadowing
> functions, but to implement the NaN-skipping behavior within the
> existing core functions.

You can only "fix" what is "buggy" (or erroneous).

> 2) The idea of the NaN-toolbox is not that "NaNs should never be propagated
> in a calculation" but that NaN's should be ignored in *statistical" analysis
> (emphasis on "statistical").

Why is sumsq a "statistical" function, then? Potentially every
function is statistical.

The problem is that these two languages (Octave and Matlab) doesn't
have namespaces to speak of. When we have offered ways to partition
the namespace (e.g. classes) you refuse to use them. Introducing new
functionality by abusing the namespace is problematic.

Since we can't agree what to do, the warnings should remain.

- Jordi G. H.