Re: is_complex_nd_array() ?

[jjg]

Hi Max,

OK, this is my last word on this -- I'm sorry if my previous posts
have read like a rant.  


Max Brister wrote
> 
> I don't think this is complete insanity. It's a minor mistake in
> naming at the worst.
> 

So here we have a difference of view on the software engineering
importance of naming.  You think that a counter-intuitive name for
a fundamental part of your software is a minor mistake, I think that
it is a disaster.  We agree to disagree.

But ask yourself this.  How many oct-files in the wild implement
algorithms which apply to (real world) matrices and not to (real world)
n-dimensional arrays perform a check is_matrix() and so do not catch
arguments which are (real world) n-dimensional arrays but not 
(real world) matrices.  This "minor mistake" is responsible for all of 
that broken code.  



> If you really feel so strongly about the issue (and want to work on a
> patch) you can bring it up on the octave-maintainers list.
> 

This is not a technical issue but a sociological one, I don't think an
outsider suggesting a renaming of a fundamental low-level 
component of a huge codebase like octave would be greeted
with much enthusiasm. It would require a huge effort and result
in not one functional change to the end user.   The only way that   
that a mistake like this could be fixed is a concerted effort of all 
of leaders of the project over several months.  Probably some 
key devs would become cheesed off and leave as a result.

I will pass on this.

Best wishes

Jim



--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/is-complex-nd-array-tp4642807p4642844.html
Sent from the Octave - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.