Re: Handling "parfor" as "for"

[Søren Hauberg]

tor, 29 09 2011 kl. 03:23 -0400, skrev John W. Eaton:
> On 29-Sep-2011, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> 
> | tor, 29 09 2011 kl. 02:58 -0400, skrev John W. Eaton:
> | > Now Octave can accept statements of the form
> | > 
> | >   parfor LHS = EXPR BODY end
> | >   parfor ( LHS = EXPR, MAXPROC ) BODY end
> | 
> | Does it have the corresponding 'end's ? I.e. can I write
> | 
> |   parfor LHS = EXPR
> |     BODY
> |   endfor
> | 
> | or
> | 
> |   parfor LHS = EXPR
> |     BODY
> |   endparfor
> | 
> | ?
> 
> Sorry, I'm tired and did not notice you ended the first parfor loop with
> endfor.  That would be an error, but you can use endparfor to end a
> parfor loop.
> 
> Well, I spelled it end_parfor, but it should be endparfor instead.
> That's a trivial change.

Sounds great :-)

Thanks
Søren