[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ideas for auto BSX
From: |
Judd Storrs |
Subject: |
Re: Ideas for auto BSX |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:18:09 -0500 |
2011/10/1 Jordi GutiƩrrez Hermoso <address@hidden>:
> As I've said before, I don't see "Matlab compatibility" to be anything
> more than source compatibility. If it runs in Matlab, it should run in
> Octave and produce almost the same result (perhaps slight variation in
> graphics is acceptable, for example). I don't see making everything in
> Octave working and looking exactly like Matlab to be the goal. We
> already have lots of other nice Octave-only language features (e.g.
> being able to define functions interactively without needing a
> separate file for each or being able to index temporaries), and that's
> not lack of Matlab compatibility.
One thing that just occurred to me is: does it become much more
difficult to automatically translate octave code into code that will
run in matlab? My hunch is it becomes nearly impossible to do this
well. I guess you could translate all operator expressions into
bsxfun() calls for matlab. I think a specialized operator would convey
semantics that could help a translator.
--judd
- Re: Ideas for auto BSX,
Judd Storrs <=