[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #64516] Document how optimset expands short option inputs to full option names

[Markus Mützel]

Follow-up Comment #19, bug #64516 (project octave):

My question is why you'd add custom fields to the options structure in the
first place.
I'd guess that doing that is the first user error. The second user error is
probably to mix optimset with direct modifications of the options structure.

I'm guessing that the option structure for the optimization functions was
invented by the MathWorks before classdef was a thing. Otherwise, they'd
probably created a class for which adding arbitrary fields would be an error.
For backward compatibility, we now need to live with how things are designed.

To get this back on track: Octave would definitely benefit from a better
documentation of this.
I'm looking forward to your suggestions for an improved help text that would
have avoided the current confusion for you.



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64516>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/