|
From: | Paul Kienzle |
Subject: | Re: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?] |
Date: | Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:23:31 -0500 |
On Feb 24, 2005, at 4:31 AM, David Bateman wrote:
Paul Kienzle wrote:The problem with oct-files is that they are more difficult to maintain.Usually they have more code, and fewer people in our user base are comfortable debugging them.Personally, I would like to see most argument type checking and conversiongoing on in m-files, and have a light foreign function interface thatcan directly call C code with dense vectors. That keeps the C easy andallows octave to be fast. - PaulUnfortunately, in the case I show th etype checking for arbitrary user types can't be done since the current assumption of have retval=zeros(nr,nc), and then filling it in with assignments makes the assumption that there is an assignment defined for octave_matrix to an arbitrary type. This is not the case, the only other way to treat this is if something like "retval=x([])(1:nr,1:nc)" could be made to convert the input matrix x to a zero size matrix then the second indexing be made to do a resize_and_fill to the right size find with zeros of the correct type. The alternative is that the zeros function could be adapted so that "zeros(nr,nc,x)" would return a zero sized matrix of the same type as x, the question is then is "zeros(2,2,2)" interpreted as a 3-D matrix of zeros or a 2-D matrix of the same type as "2"......
zeros(m,n,"typename"), or in the triu case, zeros(m,n,class(X)). This avoids the ambiguity and bonus it is already implemented. - Paul
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |