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

[Liang Tang]

Follow-up Comment #20, bug #64516 (project octave):

Markus, 

These are my replies. 

My question is why you'd add custom fields to the options structure in the
first place. <== options is a struct that enters analysis m files.  It is an
easy vehicle to carry info into user defined function.  If this is not
allowed, Octave should either stop me or ignore me.  My view is: once Octave
accepts the added fields, they should be treated with the same family rule. 
The example in my prior note indicated that they are not handled according to
our communication (or known rules) in this bug report.  

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.
<== Nothing would prevent this to occur.  matlab/octave are not strictly
object oriented programming code.  Proper use of the short cut is not harmful
and can be seen in lots of codes.  I understand the mindset of
optimset/optimget.  All I can say is that it takes lots of discipline to
follow when there is no control.     


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

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

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