[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: datetick, reason for explicitly undocumented behavior?

From: Julien Bect
Subject: Re: datetick, reason for explicitly undocumented behavior?
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:45:44 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0

Le 02/01/2017 à 10:34, Julien Bect a écrit :
Le 01/01/2017 à 22:42, Julien Bect a écrit :
Le 01/01/2017 à 20:48, siko1056 a écrit :
Jonathan Suever wrote
It's worth noting that the OP was using the second example on the online
as a guide which also incorrectly transposes the first two inputs. I have
submitted a bug report to the bug tracker

I'm more than happy to help fix this documentation error if someone can
point me towards the best way to contribute changes towards the online

As explained in the bug tracker [1] the change of the online documentation
[2] (actually it is a documentation maintained by Octave forge, the official
Octave documentation for the latest release is found at [3]) depends on a
page update by Carnë.


I have just checked: I have r/w access on these pages (but perhaps all OF developpers have ?).

Generating the documentation should be as simple as a call to generate_html_manual... (@Carnë: is there anything else to do ?).

I should never have said "simple"...

Ok, I have managed to produce a documentation and pushed it online:

Tell me if there is anything wrong with it.  The old documentation is still available here:

just in case.  @++

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]