octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: laguerre.m functions in specfun package


From: Carnë Draug
Subject: Re: laguerre.m functions in specfun package
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:30:19 +0100

On 25 April 2015 at 20:30, Philip Nienhuis <address@hidden> wrote:
> Carnë Draug wrote:
>>
>> On 25 April 2015 at 15:56, Philip Nienhuis <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> After Colin has tidied up a bit in the OF specfun package, I'm planning
>>> to
>>> make a new release of it.
>>>
>>> The package in the mercurial repo contains two laguerre.m functions, one
>>> in
>>> inst/, the other in devel/
>>>
>>> The latter looks to be a bit more elaborate (it contains a demo and
>>> perhaps
>>> more aptly named variables), to compensate for that it is lacking a bit
>>> in
>>> coding style and lacks the one comment line that was present in the
>>> original
>>> (?) one in inst/.
>>>
>>> So, any advice about which laguerre.m to retain?
>>
>>
>> "hg log" tells me this is work from Juan Carbajal who was trying to merge
>> the
>> existing laguerre with laguerrepoly from the miscellaneous package:
>>
>>      o  changeset:   144:88d235233c5e
>>      |  user:        jpicarbajal
>>      |  date:        Sun Apr 14 19:33:57 2013 +0000
>>      |  files:       devel/laguerre.m
>>      |  description:
>>      |  specfun: unifying laguerre and laguerrepoly
>>
>> Also, the plan was to simply move the whole specfun package into the
>> unmaintained section.
>>
>> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?44533#comment3
>
>
> Hmmm, I missed that part of the discussion (although I commented there
> initially).
>
> I wouldn't mind keeping specfun around a little longer, esp. now that Colin
> pimped the heaviside and dirac functions.
> His suggestion to move them to core is probably too late for 4.0.0 so I
> suggested to temporarily have them in a new specfun release, see
> https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/index.php?8644#comment4
>
> As far as I'm concerned that could be the last specfun release then; it
> could have a dependency added on Octave < 4.2.0
>
> So, what shall I do?

I am arguing that dirac and heaviside should be moved to the symbolic
package.  And then we drop the specfun package.
See https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8644#comment13

Carnë



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]